Dogs Sleeping Forum

Guest wrote:

I see, the “truly wonderful friends”

He truly makes my skin crawl.

Guest wrote:

jp761 wrote:Why don't some of you tossers stop with the safi silliness, trying to bait GD into replying here obviously isn't working. You've tried it a few times recently, he clearly isn't going to rise to your bait.

Scots Rool is an ok poster in my book.

As for those peeps who need backup, back-patters united, I enjoy those people. And other folks can see who some of these people are, because some of them stick out like a sore thumb.

I assumed gd was the author of the 'tosser' post.

Canucklehead wrote:There's lot of variation between size 6 and not being able to see your feet. Many women will fall under the plus-size umbrella and not be anywhere near the taking up two bus seats category.

As jp said, the people going on about the weight thing are probably trying to goad certain DS members into taking the bait. Why on Earth they care about someone's weight is beyond me. It's just a lazy go-to insult for the intellectually inadequate. Like the hotel owner in the news story from Blackpool posted on DS.

jp761 wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:There's lot of variation between size 6 and not being able to see your feet. Many women will fall under the plus-size umbrella and not be anywhere near the taking up two bus seats category.

As jp said, the people going on about the weight thing are probably trying to goad certain DS members into taking the bait. Why on Earth they care about someone's weight is beyond me. It's just a lazy go-to insult for the intellectually inadequate. Like the hotel owner in the news story from Blackpool posted on DS.

My take on it is this. It's not always about what size/weight people are. It can be about firmness, body shape and tone. Someone can be on the heavier side on the scales, but still look good. It greatly depends on how folks look after themselves, but that doesn't 'necessarily' mean a female needs to weigh 7 stone to look good. Basically, people 'can' still look good even if they are quite heavy on the scales. Obviously there does come a point where this changes, though.

Vam wrote:To the agitated Guesty up there ...

jp761 wrote:[My take on it is this. It's not always about what size/weight people are. It can be about firmness, body shape and tone. Someone can be on the heavier side on the scales, but still look good. It greatly depends on how folks look after themselves, but that doesn't 'necessarily' mean a female needs to weigh 7 stone to look good. Basically, people 'can' still look good even if they are quite heavy on the scales. Obviously there does come a point where this changes, though.

Guest wrote:

jp761 wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:There's lot of variation between size 6 and not being able to see your feet. Many women will fall under the plus-size umbrella and not be anywhere near the taking up two bus seats category.

As jp said, the people going on about the weight thing are probably trying to goad certain DS members into taking the bait. Why on Earth they care about someone's weight is beyond me. It's just a lazy go-to insult for the intellectually inadequate. Like the hotel owner in the news story from Blackpool posted on DS.

My take on it is this. It's not always about what size/weight people are. It can be about firmness, body shape and tone. Someone can be on the heavier side on the scales, but still look good. It greatly depends on how folks look after themselves, but that doesn't 'necessarily' mean a female needs to weigh 7 stone to look good. Basically, people 'can' still look good even if they are quite heavy on the scales. Obviously there does come a point where this changes, though.

As usual, bloody well said Mr.

Guest wrote:

NastyNickers wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:There's lot of variation between size 6 and not being able to see your feet. Many women will fall under the plus-size umbrella and not be anywhere near the taking up two bus seats category.

As jp said, the people going on about the weight thing are probably trying to goad certain DS members into taking the bait. Why on Earth they care about someone's weight is beyond me. It's just a lazy go-to insult for the intellectually inadequate. Like the hotel owner in the news story from Blackpool posted on DS.

Perfectly said!

There's loads of variations. People carry fat differently, and height/length can distribute it differently. Weight insults fuck me right off, and they can be so fucking damaging.

Yet we had less people complain when posters called JP skinny or Jason Watkins fat. To many it was seen as a joke so not sure why people are getting so bent out of shape this time round.

I agree that the comments designed to goad GD are pathetic but then the skinny runt jabs at JP are too.

Guest wrote:

NastyNickers wrote:

Guest wrote:

NastyNickers wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:There's lot of variation between size 6 and not being able to see your feet. Many women will fall under the plus-size umbrella and not be anywhere near the taking up two bus seats category.

As jp said, the people going on about the weight thing are probably trying to goad certain DS members into taking the bait. Why on Earth they care about someone's weight is beyond me. It's just a lazy go-to insult for the intellectually inadequate. Like the hotel owner in the news story from Blackpool posted on DS.

Perfectly said!

There's loads of variations. People carry fat differently, and height/length can distribute it differently. Weight insults fuck me right off, and they can be so fucking damaging.

Yet we had less people complain when posters called JP skinny or Jason Watkins fat. To many it was seen as a joke so not sure why people are getting so bent out of shape this time round.

I agree that the comments designed to goad GD are pathetic but then the skinny runt jabs at JP are too.

And I have commented on skinny insults before, too. As have others.

Yes but usually it’s Not in the same way imo. People seem far more offended by women or Safi being called fat than JP being called skinny. Maybe it’s a society and gender thing. A bit like how we can laugh at bald men but laughing at a women with hair loss is seen very differently, even when really it’s should be bad to insult anyone’s apoearance.

cobaye22 wrote:

Guest wrote:

jp761 wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:There's lot of variation between size 6 and not being able to see your feet. Many women will fall under the plus-size umbrella and not be anywhere near the taking up two bus seats category.

As jp said, the people going on about the weight thing are probably trying to goad certain DS members into taking the bait. Why on Earth they care about someone's weight is beyond me. It's just a lazy go-to insult for the intellectually inadequate. Like the hotel owner in the news story from Blackpool posted on DS.

My take on it is this. It's not always about what size/weight people are. It can be about firmness, body shape and tone. Someone can be on the heavier side on the scales, but still look good. It greatly depends on how folks look after themselves, but that doesn't 'necessarily' mean a female needs to weigh 7 stone to look good. Basically, people 'can' still look good even if they are quite heavy on the scales. Obviously there does come a point where this changes, though.

As usual, bloody well said Mr.

He's waffling like a twat as per.

In Brief Guest wrote:

jp761 wrote:[My take on it is this. It's not always about what size/weight people are. It can be about firmness, body shape and tone. Someone can be on the heavier side on the scales, but still look good. It greatly depends on how folks look after themselves, but that doesn't 'necessarily' mean a female needs to weigh 7 stone to look good. Basically, people 'can' still look good even if they are quite heavy on the scales. Obviously there does come a point where this changes, though.

So it's not weight, it's tone; but we all know when someone's been at the pies.

jp761 wrote:The almighty waffler speaks, I take it as a compliment from you.