Ad Lib Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 She's got a book called the cursed child or something, was in the window of Waterstones where I saw it. It's a play. Of course she doesn't need the publicity, it's just a coincidence that there's a flare up when she has a book/play or whatever out. Yes. Yes it is a coincidence. Every fucking time. There have been plenty flare-ups when she didn't have anything coming out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mizfit Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 No people have links to their work accounts on their personal accounts all the time. The only public service Pete Wishart could ever do is resign and let a more competent alternative SNP politician assume his seat at Westminster. He is a joke. It's funny because he got into office and all you did was make a funny face on telly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaffenThinMint Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 did you know she has a book out? It's a play She's got a book called the cursed child or something, was in the window of Waterstones where I saw it. It's a play. https://www.waterstones.com/book/harry-potter-and-the-cursed-child-parts-i-and-ii/j-k-rowling/jack-thorne/9780751565355 Hmmm, looks like a book to me! If Marigold Cowie wants to keep being so precious about it, the play was actually written by Jack Thorne, adapted from Jakey's still to be seen story, but never mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 No one said the script of the play wasn't for sale for distribution. Indeed, all that the forum's resident bigot's contribution has done is to prove my statement more correct. The "book" people saw in Waterstones was a specific manuscript of a play not written by JK Rowling. She therefore didn't "have a book out"; Jack Thorne did. That "book" is based on a "play" that JK Rowling, in collaboration with Thorne and John Tiffany, are launching in London's West End next month. So by every single definition of the meaning of the words and sentiment I uttered, I was completely and utterly right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milton75 Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 He was demonstrably trying to get Daisley reprimanded for expressing a personal view. It *is* his personal account. He directly asked a question. You stated: No, Pete Wishart ridiculously suggested that a comment Stephen Daisley made about Internet political activists, comparing north and south of the border, on his personal Twitter account, was STV's official view in a creepy sort of "how dare you dissent" you should lose your job kind of way, and Rowling called it out as bullshit creepy. You lied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 He directly asked a question. You stated: You lied. His question was deliberately insinuating that, and anyone who claims otherwise is being breathtakingly disingenuous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scary Bear Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 No people have links to their work accounts on their personal accounts all the time. The only public service Pete Wishart could ever do is resign and let a more competent alternative SNP politician assume his seat at Westminster. He is a joke. You need to get yourself a white suit and a red and white stripey tie and stand against him in 2020. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milton75 Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 His question was deliberately insinuating that, and anyone who claims otherwise is being breathtakingly disingenuous. He asked a simple question, whether his opinion was in one direction or the other doesn't change that fact, You, on the other hand, are not disingenuous; you are openly dishonest, and no spurious injections of unnecessary "breathtakingly's" can disguise that fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 Seemingly Petes tweet question was an attempt at "bullying" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 No one said the script of the play wasn't for sale for distribution. Indeed, all that the forum's resident bigot's contribution has done is to prove my statement more correct. The "book" people saw in Waterstones was a specific manuscript of a play not written by JK Rowling. She therefore didn't "have a book out"; Jack Thorne did. That "book" is based on a "play" that JK Rowling, in collaboration with Thorne and John Tiffany, are launching in London's West End next month. So by every single definition of the meaning of the words and sentiment I uttered, I was completely and utterly right. Are you claiming none of the revenue from the book goes to Rowling? If not it's as much "her book" as a translation of a book by Gunter Grass is "his book". It's based on her work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fide Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 He asked a simple question, whether his opinion was in one direction or the other doesn't change that fact, You, on the other hand, are not disingenuous; you are openly dishonest, and no spurious injections of unnecessary "breathtakingly's" can disguise that fact. Lib Dem in spurious liar shocker. Whodathunkit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 Are you claiming none of the revenue from the book goes to Rowling? If not it's as much "her book" as a translation of a book by Gunter Grass is "his book". It's based on her work. No, I'm saying it's not her book, in the sense that she didn't write it and the credit for the writing of it has gone to a person other than JK Rowling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaffenThinMint Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 It's funny because he got into office and all you did was make a funny face on telly Yep, and then shat himself when he thought Murphy had saw him sniggering behind his back. If ever a moment encapsulated Adlib, that night was it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 Yep, and then shat himself when he thought Murphy had saw him sniggering behind his back. Hardly. If ever a moment encapsulated Adlib, that night was it. I agree. As a lifelong pursuer of lost causes who doesn't take themselves too seriously, but who sticks by their promises to #DoTheDaleCarrick, I think that night encapsulated me pretty well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaffenThinMint Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 Hardly. I agree. As a lifelong pursuer of lost causes who doesn't take themselves too seriously, but who sticks by their promises to #DoTheDaleCarrick, I think that night encapsulated me pretty well. https://youtu.be/lQH4BEl9JCg?t=2m45s Five seconds into you sniggering behind Murphy's back - the smile is instantly wiped off your face when Murphy turns around & you clearly shat it that he might have saw you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 https://youtu.be/lQH4BEl9JCg?t=2m45s Five seconds into you sniggering behind Murphy's back - the smile is instantly wiped off your face when Murphy turns around & you clearly shat it that he might have saw you. No, that's not what happened at all. I stopped laughing because laughing non-stop would have looked seriously fucking stupid in front of several hundred people. The guy doesn't even turn around. You're full of shit. ETA: you can see me begin to snigger again when he effuses false praise on Kirsten Oswald. That's at a point when he *actually* turns around. Not very much "shitting myself" there, is there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 No, that's not what happened at all. I stopped laughing because laughing non-stop would have looked seriously fucking stupid in front of several hundred people. The guy doesn't even turn around. You're full of shit. ETA: you can see me begin to snigger again when he effuses false praise on Kirsten Oswald. That's at a point when he *actually* turns around. Not very much "shitting myself" there, is there? I was well impressed, tried the Dale Carrick look in front of the mirror a couple of times and it's very hard not to look like Dale Winton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milton75 Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 It's notable that rather than be honest and hold his hands up and say "I overstated the facts", or somesuch at least partial excuse to the lie, Ad Lib chooses instead to glibly move on and pretend it hasn't happened and been called out. ETA - Murphy defo would have taken you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 I was well impressed, tried the Dale Carrick look in front of the mirror a couple of times and it's not easy. What can I say? I'm a fantastic actor. I was even the Wicked Queen in my Primary 7 Christmas Pantomime rendition of "Snow White and the Seven Pop Stars". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaffenThinMint Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 No, that's not what happened at all. I stopped laughing because laughing non-stop would have looked seriously fucking stupid in front of several hundred people. The guy doesn't even turn around. You're full of shit. ETA: you can see me begin to snigger again when he effuses false praise on Kirsten Oswald. That's at a point when he *actually* turns around. Not very much "shitting myself" there, is there? At 2.50 Murphy turns round & your hand immediately goes to your face pretending that you had to scratch it. You shat it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.