[optimisticcynic]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

But shes not sunk to the depths he has by telling everyone why she doesnt like him

He has not sunk to any depth. He has put her constant targeting of him in its true context. If she wished to honour her dead husband's memory, she would have thought of the ramifications of her bitchiness and snide comments, knowing if the whole story came out she would rehash his transgressions. The dead deserve acknowledgment (not necessarily respect as only those that knew them can speak of their character, and we will all die eventually) but it is cowardly to snipe at others hiding behind the hope that they will not mention the reason/your own laundry because it involves the dead. Jim held his tongue for long enough. He even told her, likely from a perspective of personal experience, that she needed to "let go of [her] anger".
Linda cannot constantly gripe about a past incident and then when it is mentioned so she has to justify her behaviour, turn on her target for defending his position and past actions.

[Santa's NaughtiNess]

Originally Posted by optimisticcynic

He has not sunk to any depth. He has put her constant targeting of him in its true context. If she wished to honour her dead husband's memory, she would have thought of the ramifications of her bitchiness and snide comments, knowing if the whole story came out she would rehash his transgressions. The dead deserve acknowledgment (not necessarily respect as only those that knew them can speak of their character, and we will all die eventually) but it is cowardly to snipe at others hiding behind the hope that they will not mention the reason/your own laundry because it involves the dead. Jim held his tongue for long enough. He even told her, likely from a perspective of personal experience, that she needed to "let go of [her] anger".
Linda cannot constantly gripe about a past incident and then when it is mentioned so she has to justify her behaviour, turn on her target for defending his position and past actions.

[Z]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

But shes not sunk to the depths he has by telling everyone why she doesnt like him

He hasn't told anyone why he doesn't like her and I'd hardly say skirting around the issue but bringing it up all the time makes her morally superior to him for making one out of order comment; if he's at the depths then she's floating right above him. As bad as each other.

[jet]

Originally Posted by optimisticcynic

He has not sunk to any depth. He has put her constant targeting of him in its true context. If she wished to honour her dead husband's memory, she would have thought of the ramifications of her bitchiness and snide comments, knowing if the whole story came out she would rehash his transgressions. The dead deserve acknowledgment (not necessarily respect as only those that knew them can speak of their character, and we will all die eventually) but it is cowardly to snipe at others hiding behind the hope that they will not mention the reason/your own laundry because it involves the dead. Jim held his tongue for long enough. He even told her, likely from a perspective of personal experience, that she needed to "let go of [her] anger".
Linda cannot constantly gripe about a past incident and then when it is mentioned so she has to justify her behaviour, turn on her target for defending his position and past actions.

How do you know that the Frank Carson incident is the reason why she dislikes him? She didn't confirm that. Until she does, your reasoning is not valid.

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by optimisticcynic

He has not sunk to any depth. He has put her constant targeting of him in its true context. If she wished to honour her dead husband's memory, she would have thought of the ramifications of her bitchiness and snide comments, knowing if the whole story came out she would rehash his transgressions. The dead deserve acknowledgment (not necessarily respect as only those that knew them can speak of their character, and we will all die eventually) but it is cowardly to snipe at others hiding behind the hope that they will not mention the reason/your own laundry because it involves the dead. Jim held his tongue for long enough. He even told her, likely from a perspective of personal experience, that she needed to "let go of [her] anger".
Linda cannot constantly gripe about a past incident and then when it is mentioned so she has to justify her behaviour, turn on her target for defending his position and past actions.

When you bring a dead person into an argument you sink to a depth no one with common decency should sink too

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by jet

How do you know that the Frank Carson incident is the reason why she dislikes him? She didn't confirm that. Until she does, your reasoning is not valid.

[Santa's NaughtiNess]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

When you bring a dead person into an argument you sink to a depth no one with common decency should sink too

he did not mention her dead husband at all. she did.

[MrWong]

Originally Posted by optimisticcynic

He has not sunk to any depth. He has put her constant targeting of him in its true context. If she wished to honour her dead husband's memory, she would have thought of the ramifications of her bitchiness and snide comments, knowing if the whole story came out she would rehash his transgressions. The dead deserve acknowledgment (not necessarily respect as only those that knew them can speak of their character, and we will all die eventually) but it is cowardly to snipe at others hiding behind the hope that they will not mention the reason/your own laundry because it involves the dead. Jim held his tongue for long enough. He even told her, likely from a perspective of personal experience, that she needed to "let go of [her] anger".
Linda cannot constantly gripe about a past incident and then when it is mentioned so she has to justify her behaviour, turn on her target for defending his position and past actions.

I've noticed this little gem being repeated in a feeble attempt to defend Jim.
The targeting works both ways so this innocent, saintly Jim crap is bollocks.

Hm's have commented and used as nom reasons the tit for tat digs and sarcastic comments that their relationship consist of but it's only Jim that's got nasty, so enough with the re-writing of history.

[optimisticcynic]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

When you bring a dead person into an argument you sink to a depth no one with common decency should sink too

Absolute tosh! Death does not make saints of sinners. Reformation/change makes saints of sinners. Our actions in life determine our legacy and memory in death. I have an opinion on past friends, relatives and enemies and I am entitled to maintain and express these opinions, even if it is unpleasant for others to hear. Jim did not speak ill of anyone, he alluded to a crime that a now-deceased person committed and admitted to. Jim did not steal that money, and history and its consequences cannot be rewritten just because the man passed away. Should we tell our children that Hitler was an estate agent and Saville invented the electric toothbrush?

You stated you have your own bereavement which you are dealing with Chuff, and I respect that, but you cannot dictate that others must ignore their own experiences of or feelings about people that you don't even know.

[Z]

Originally Posted by MrWong

I've noticed this little gem being repeated in a feeble attempt to defend Jim.
The targeting works both ways so this innocent, saintly Jim crap is bollocks.

Hm's have commented and used as nom reasons the tit for tat digs and sarcastic comments that their relationship consist of but it's only Jim that's got nasty, so enough with the re-writing of history.

You're missing the point; it's the opposite - Linda is not a saint, she's as bad as Jim. People aren't bringing up Linda's constant badgering of Jim to excuse him, they're bringing it up to point out that she's been haranguing him for exactly this situation and now she's finally got it. What have either of them achieved? They both look like idiots.

[MrWong]

Originally Posted by optimisticcynic

Absolute tosh! Death does not make saints of sinners. Reformation/change makes saints of sinners. Our actions in life determine our legacy and memory in death. I have an opinion on past friends, relatives and enemies and I am entitled to maintain and express these opinions, even if it is unpleasant for others to hear. Jim did not speak ill of anyone, he alluded to a crime that a now-deceased person committed and admitted to. Jim did not steal that money, and history and its consequences cannot be rewritten just because the man passed away. Should we tell our children that Hitler was an estate agent and Saville invented the electric toothbrush?

You stated you have your own bereavement which you are dealing with Chuff, and I respect that, but you cannot dictate that others must ignore their own experiences of or feelings about people that you don't even know.

I think you are missing the point.

It was brought up and used in an argument.

It was a low blow.

I'm not sure anyone wants to make Linda's husband a saint/sinner or re-write history because the man's dead.

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by MrWong

I've noticed this little gem being repeated in a feeble attempt to defend Jim.
The targeting works both ways so this innocent, saintly Jim crap is bollocks.

Hm's have commented and used as nom reasons the tit for tat digs and sarcastic comments that their relationship consist of but it's only Jim that's got nasty, so enough with the re-writing of history.

EXACTLY, makes me sick people who have made an hero out of him since he made a woman sob on national Tv ,disgusting

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by Zee

You're missing the point; it's the opposite - Linda is not a saint, she's as bad as Jim. People aren't bringing up Linda's constant badgering of Jim to excuse him, they're bringing it up to point out that she's been haranguing him for exactly this situation and now she's finally got it. What have either of them achieved? They both look like idiots.

Like Ive said Im sure Lindas got a lot on Jim,but shes been dignified and kept it to herself ,makes her the bigger person

[optimisticcynic]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

EXACTLY, makes me sick people who have made an hero out of him since he made a woman sob on national Tv ,disgusting

That's ridiculous, Chuff. Who cares if it's a woman or man upset on TV? She was berating him before he even got in the house. Why is he satan for fighting his corner? Jim fired a warning shot to get her to back off. She then emptied her laundry basket on national television to garner sympathy. On another post she has told the housemates that her hubby was innocent but pleaded guilty because he wished to spare his family the negative publicity, yet it is public record that he pleaded guilty once confronted with video evidence of him taking the cash. She is deluded and probably hates Jim because he did not acquiesce to her distorted account then and will not do so now.

[MrWong]

Originally Posted by Zee

You're missing the point; it's the opposite - Linda is not a saint, she's as bad as Jim. People aren't bringing up Linda's constant badgering of Jim to excuse him, they're bringing it up to point out that she's been haranguing him for exactly this situation and now she's finally got it. What have either of them achieved? They both look like idiots.

I've not seen anyone say that Linda's innocent. I haven't said it either so I'm not sure why you've said that in reply to my post.

I've said that it's tit for tat with those 2.

But the post I replied to spoke of the constant targeting of Jim by Linda only, of her bitchiness and sly comments as though Jim's innocent of that.

They even stated that Jim held his tongue. No he didn't. It's been tit for tat.

[optimisticcynic]

Originally Posted by MrWong

I think you are missing the point.

It was brought up and used in an argument.

It was a low blow.

I'm not sure anyone wants to make Linda's husband a saint/sinner or re-write history because the man's dead.

What was the argument about??? How can you assume it's unrelated when Jim stated it was, and all Linda does is make snide comments and cry to whomever will listen. You cannot say it was a low blow without context, and Linda has already rewritten history, telling the other housemates her hubby was innocent despite the video evidence to the contrary.

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by optimisticcynic

Who cares if it's a woman or man upset on TV? She was berating him before he even got in the house. Why is he satan for fighting his corner? Jim fired a warning shot to get her to back off. She then emptied her laundry basket on national television to garner sympathy. On another post she has told the housemates that her hubby was innocent but pleaded guilty because he wished to spare his family the negative publicity, yet it is public record that he pleaded guilty once confronted with video evidence of him taking the cash. She is deluded and probably hates Jim because he did not acquiesce to her distorted account then and will not do so now.

Very well said.Agree!

[Seraphim]

Double post - sorry

[Seraphim]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

EXACTLY, makes me sick people who have made an hero out of him since he made a woman sob on national Tv ,disgusting

All that loud weeping and wailing was obviously just a ploy to gain sympathy and manipulate people into blaming Jim for upsetting her. I don't know why you can't see that.

If I'd been in Jim's position and constantly hearing people bitching about me whenever I walked into a room, I'd have spent most of my time in the bathroom weeping and trying not to let people realise I was so upset. I don't blame him for retorting to some of her comments. That's a typical way a comic would deal with things - they have to be quick with the retorts. I'm a teacher and had to develop the same ability PDQ. I've never seen his show and know nothing about him but I have quite appreciated the input he's had in the house - he's very wise and quite caring. He reminds me of my father, who is also a bit of a bigot, like Jim, but he's been a tower of strength for me throughout my life - my first port of call in trouble. I think the bigotry is a generational thing - men were pushed in this dominant role, expected to see women as the weaker sex, and required to bottle up their emotions. I'm really glad I'm a woman - we seem to get away with far more than guys these days - snideness, manipulativeness, bitchiness, spite, inappropriate sexual comments/behaviour and a lot more.