| Conflict of interest 05:10 - Feb 22 with 24061 views | Loyal |
It was mentioned the other day Phil running the site and being on the trust was a conflict of interest.
I can't find any response by E20 after alleging there was. Probably me. Is there a link ? |  |
| Nolan sympathiser, clout expert, personal friend of Leigh Dineen, advocate and enforcer of porridge swallows.
The official inventor of the tit w@nk. | | Poll: | Who should be Swansea number 1 |
| |  |
| Conflict of interest on 13:55 - Feb 28 with 1689 views | swanforthemoney |
Chad. You should stand for election to the Trust Board with the above as your manifesto. I’ll vote for you. |  |
| I stand in the North Stand
|
| |
| Conflict of interest on 13:57 - Feb 28 with 1682 views | swanforthemoney |
| Conflict of interest on 13:51 - Feb 28 by The_E20 |
Does Aguero not scoring in open play in his last game suggest he is not a natural
goalscorer? Or would it be sensible to look at the goals he HAS scored as proof of that... as opposed to the occasions he hasn’t?
Does the fact Harold Shipman didn’t kill a particular person prove he is not a mass murderer? Or would it be more sensible to judge whether he is or not on the people he HAS killed?
Should I go on? |
Yes go on and on and on .... | |
| I stand in the North Stand
|
| |
| Conflict of interest on 14:00 - Feb 28 with 1668 views | The_E20 |
| Conflict of interest on 13:57 - Feb 28 by swanforthemoney |
Yes go on and on and on .... |
Sure.
A thread seen by many people, so not deleted, is not proof that threads don’t get deleted. The threads that get deleted are proof of that, of which there are many.
The_E20 gets to post this simply because of the belligerent nature to not be bullied or accept silencing. Had I given in to their toxic censorship, I would be unable to comment (same goes for Chad and all the others). Which is why I never will and nobody should stand for it. [Post edited 28 Feb 2019 14:06]
|  | | |
| Conflict of interest on 14:23 - Feb 28 with 1629 views | swanforthemoney |
| Conflict of interest on 14:00 - Feb 28 by The_E20 |
Sure.
A thread seen by many people, so not deleted, is not proof that threads don’t get deleted. The threads that get deleted are proof of that, of which there are many.
The_E20 gets to post this simply because of the belligerent nature to not be bullied or accept silencing. Had I given in to their toxic censorship, I would be unable to comment (same goes for Chad and all the others). Which is why I never will and nobody should stand for it. [Post edited 28 Feb 2019 14:06]
|
My point is that this thread shows open debate is possible and not all criticism is closed down. Even Sergio aguero and Harold shipman can have their say. | |
| I stand in the North Stand
|
| |
| Conflict of interest on 14:24 - Feb 28 with 1627 views | swanforthemoney |
| Conflict of interest on 00:39 - Feb 24 by The_E20 |
Desperately trying to insult supporters that you incorrectly disagree with isn’t doing your cause or the cause of the organisation you represent any good... (although I use that term loosely as it isn’t apparent what it is you actually do).
But alas, I would suggest it’s more a case of the person telling you they are not lies is hoodwinking you, and you are too giddy as you feel important now to realise you are being lied to. As usual you remain about 3 steps behind what is actually happening, which is useful to have on the board considering the Trust likes it when their affiliates cannot work out what is going on for toffee until it’s too late.
I have seen the evidence with my own eyes. Let’s say for arguments sake I am right. Do you think this is yet another own goal from the Trust? If there is a case to answer would you recommend they come clean? Hypothetically speaking of course.
And this ridiculous notion about refusing to discuss stuff and deleting/locking things because of Huw is nonsense, nobody is blaming Huw anymore. The accusation is at the Trust door. In that case anything bad said about the Americans - can we delete and lock them? You know, to be consistent like? Course not, that won’t help Trust propaganda now will it.
What say ye Andrew? [Post edited 24 Feb 2019 3:19]
|
Why not ask Aguero while you are at it? | |
| I stand in the North Stand
|
| |
| Conflict of interest on 14:25 - Feb 28 with 1622 views | swanforthemoney |
| Conflict of interest on 00:50 - Feb 24 by The_E20 |
And just like that Andrew gets sent the evidence and his tail goes back between his legs. So that’s Andrew, Ux and Phil all now know the truth and not one peep. Very odd indeed. The response instead? Try and find out who I am - priceless.
Apology accepted then, old bean. Think for yourself next time and stop getting giddy because people fell for your act on here which inexplicably got you a seat on the board. You are doing the fans, the club and the organisation no good at all with your current attitude and the “police ourselves” type approach.
So a third (probably more) of board members know this information. All I sense is a circling of the wagons, close ranks and hope it goes away type of thought while doing their best to discredit the other party. Am I right? Do you think that is working for the best interests of the club and membership... or just the best thing for the people within the Trust that occupy positions they are protecting?
This set of Trust members are becoming a bigger joke than the last ones and I really wish I was exaggerating. Can anybody take these clowns seriously? It’s embarassing. [Post edited 24 Feb 2019 1:19]
|
Harold Shipman is not convinced | |
| I stand in the North Stand
|
| |
| Conflict of interest on 14:27 - Feb 28 with 1618 views | The_E20 |
| Conflict of interest on 14:23 - Feb 28 by swanforthemoney |
My point is that this thread shows open debate is possible and not all criticism is closed down. Even Sergio aguero and Harold shipman can have their say. |
I don’t think anybody is saying all criticism is shut down are they?
If you are belligerent and persistent enough and make a big enough deal about it then you may get a few threads through.
But that’s not the point anyone is making, Sergio and Harold would also see that... and one of them is dead. | | | |
| Conflict of interest on 14:28 - Feb 28 with 1615 views | londonlisa2001 |
FAO Spratty.
So you think I sat on the f*cking fence did you.
Let’s examine the evidence shall we?
Immediately after the vote result I posted this:
“I couldn't have been more obvious that I think the deal is awful and exactly why that's the case.
I voted to reject the deal and take legal action.
I haven't received any communication by any means about my questions on the letter of concern you mentioned.
From anyone, Trust or not.
For what it's worth, I think a number of things have happened in the past few weeks, this so called letter, the disabled parking issue issue, the price of the friendly, that make it apparent that the so called influence was vastly overstated in the Trust documents.
It's also my personal belief that the documents were written in such a way, that this was the only result possible (a point I made before the vote - as I recall Ux argued against that and said that most seemed to want to stay as we are).
Unfortunately, the whole thing was decided and the debate was so one sided. It left most thinking they didn't really understand the issues and that they SHOULD support the recommendation, and many others thinking it was a forgone conclusion so they couldn't even be bothered to put one envolope in a post box.
I won't renew my membership. Not because a democratic vote went a way I didn't like, but because of the way that the issue has been handled. Some people have a fair bit of experience with some of this stuff, and no one was particularly interested in listening. Good luck though to the Trust board, I sincerely hope that my concerns are proved to be ill-founded and that we aren't sitting here in a few weeks, months or years wondering what may have been.”
Before the vote, I posted constantly against the deal, and I also wrote to the Trust in detail, explaining the issues.
You also raise the suggestion about me being asked by the Trust to bring up the issue re Cooze.
Nothing could be further from the bloody truth.
Despite the people gobbing off on here yet again last week about the issue and ‘the Trust’ hiding things as though we were all part of that, I’d remind you and others that the only reason it emerged was because I (and ECB, also now being accused of being part of a cover up) raised the bloody issue in the first place. I can assure you that far from being asked to do so, the fact that I realised there was a potential issue and blew that wide open was not something that anyone on the Trust at that time would have wanted to hapoen. I’m sure that any release of that info would have been managed very differently had anyone had their way than me (totally unconnected with the Trust at that time btw, in case you’ve f*cking forgotten) effectively blowing up a storm.
Your issues with the way people do or don’t treat you at Trust meetings has absolutely sod all to do with me. I’m not part of it am I.
As for the criticism of me not being at a meeting , f*ck you.
After the disastrous and ridiculous vote, I have tried to do something constructive to help. Not mouth off on forums, but devote literally hundreds of hours, free of charge, to add my experience to sorting out this utter sh*t. Not one penny for, to be frank, work that I would normally get paid tens of thousands of pounds for.
So instead of deciding to join in the tw*ts on here that think it’s hilarious to constantly accuse me personally of stuff they know nothing about, or constantly question my motives, or constantly harass me, why don’t you have a think about that. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Conflict of interest on 14:32 - Feb 28 with 1606 views | PozuelosSideys |
| Conflict of interest on 14:28 - Feb 28 by londonlisa2001 |
FAO Spratty.
So you think I sat on the f*cking fence did you.
Let’s examine the evidence shall we?
Immediately after the vote result I posted this:
“I couldn't have been more obvious that I think the deal is awful and exactly why that's the case.
I voted to reject the deal and take legal action.
I haven't received any communication by any means about my questions on the letter of concern you mentioned.
From anyone, Trust or not.
For what it's worth, I think a number of things have happened in the past few weeks, this so called letter, the disabled parking issue issue, the price of the friendly, that make it apparent that the so called influence was vastly overstated in the Trust documents.
It's also my personal belief that the documents were written in such a way, that this was the only result possible (a point I made before the vote - as I recall Ux argued against that and said that most seemed to want to stay as we are).
Unfortunately, the whole thing was decided and the debate was so one sided. It left most thinking they didn't really understand the issues and that they SHOULD support the recommendation, and many others thinking it was a forgone conclusion so they couldn't even be bothered to put one envolope in a post box.
I won't renew my membership. Not because a democratic vote went a way I didn't like, but because of the way that the issue has been handled. Some people have a fair bit of experience with some of this stuff, and no one was particularly interested in listening. Good luck though to the Trust board, I sincerely hope that my concerns are proved to be ill-founded and that we aren't sitting here in a few weeks, months or years wondering what may have been.”
Before the vote, I posted constantly against the deal, and I also wrote to the Trust in detail, explaining the issues.
You also raise the suggestion about me being asked by the Trust to bring up the issue re Cooze.
Nothing could be further from the bloody truth.
Despite the people gobbing off on here yet again last week about the issue and ‘the Trust’ hiding things as though we were all part of that, I’d remind you and others that the only reason it emerged was because I (and ECB, also now being accused of being part of a cover up) raised the bloody issue in the first place. I can assure you that far from being asked to do so, the fact that I realised there was a potential issue and blew that wide open was not something that anyone on the Trust at that time would have wanted to hapoen. I’m sure that any release of that info would have been managed very differently had anyone had their way than me (totally unconnected with the Trust at that time btw, in case you’ve f*cking forgotten) effectively blowing up a storm.
Your issues with the way people do or don’t treat you at Trust meetings has absolutely sod all to do with me. I’m not part of it am I.
As for the criticism of me not being at a meeting , f*ck you.
After the disastrous and ridiculous vote, I have tried to do something constructive to help. Not mouth off on forums, but devote literally hundreds of hours, free of charge, to add my experience to sorting out this utter sh*t. Not one penny for, to be frank, work that I would normally get paid tens of thousands of pounds for.
So instead of deciding to join in the tw*ts on here that think it’s hilarious to constantly accuse me personally of stuff they know nothing about, or constantly question my motives, or constantly harass me, why don’t you have a think about that. |
..and breath..
Didnt know youd walked away from it all. Dont blame you one bit if its that much of a shower of sh1t. Stick to getting paid in cash, rather than finger pointed and bollox that youll get on here.
Most definitely a loss for the fans if youve walked. |  |
| "Michu, Britton and Williams could have won 3-0 on their own. They wouldn't have required a keeper." | | Poll: | Hattricks |
| |
| Conflict of interest on 14:37 - Feb 28 with 1592 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Conflict of interest on 14:32 - Feb 28 by PozuelosSideys |
..and breath..
Didnt know youd walked away from it all. Dont blame you one bit if its that much of a shower of sh1t. Stick to getting paid in cash, rather than finger pointed and bollox that youll get on here.
Most definitely a loss for the fans if youve walked. |
I haven’t walked.
I left the Trust after the vote because I disagreed with the way it happened to such a degree (despite Spratty’s accusations).
I then decided that the better way to react was to become part of the team rather than criticise it from afar, I’ve worked incredibly hard to have an effect, which I believe I’ve done.
I’m fed up of the personal, unfounded and inaccurate attacks from people that can’t be bothered to get off their own a*se to help but just want the world to think they know much better than those making an effort if only they could stop being persecuted. | | | |
| Conflict of interest on 14:41 - Feb 28 with 1585 views | PozuelosSideys |
| Conflict of interest on 14:37 - Feb 28 by londonlisa2001 |
I haven’t walked.
I left the Trust after the vote because I disagreed with the way it happened to such a degree (despite Spratty’s accusations).
I then decided that the better way to react was to become part of the team rather than criticise it from afar, I’ve worked incredibly hard to have an effect, which I believe I’ve done.
I’m fed up of the personal, unfounded and inaccurate attacks from people that can’t be bothered to get off their own a*se to help but just want the world to think they know much better than those making an effort if only they could stop being persecuted. |
Ahh got it. Good to know in that case.
IMO, this is a messageboard and the likes of yourself, Clase, Ux etc are better off just using it for official comms (at least for this topic - maybe a locked thread can be used where you can post these things?).
As soon as you get dragged into all the rest of the noise, the work youve put in will just get ignored and the genuine points will just get picked apart by the tinfoil hat brigade.
We are all speculating here - me too. But its a complete waste of time trying to explain formal items with people who have never set foot inside a corporate building, let alone a boardroom with high-end finance people, even if the heart of many may be in the right place. | |
| "Michu, Britton and Williams could have won 3-0 on their own. They wouldn't have required a keeper." | | Poll: | Hattricks |
| |
| Conflict of interest on 14:42 - Feb 28 with 1584 views | chad |
| Conflict of interest on 13:55 - Feb 28 by swanforthemoney |
Chad. You should stand for election to the Trust Board with the above as your manifesto. I’ll vote for you. |
Thank you very much for that, very kind of you. But unlike the others I have not had the courage to stand up at election. I think personal abuse on this website also has something to do with that, and even if I were successful would be prevented by the disciplinary rules from speaking out against any policy agreed by the majority of the Board.
I also in my comments don’t wish to be seen to disregard the hard and sometimes difficult work that has been put in by the Trust Board over many years. |  | | |
| Conflict of interest on 15:04 - Feb 28 with 1548 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Conflict of interest on 14:41 - Feb 28 by PozuelosSideys |
Ahh got it. Good to know in that case.
IMO, this is a messageboard and the likes of yourself, Clase, Ux etc are better off just using it for official comms (at least for this topic - maybe a locked thread can be used where you can post these things?).
As soon as you get dragged into all the rest of the noise, the work youve put in will just get ignored and the genuine points will just get picked apart by the tinfoil hat brigade.
We are all speculating here - me too. But its a complete waste of time trying to explain formal items with people who have never set foot inside a corporate building, let alone a boardroom with high-end finance people, even if the heart of many may be in the right place. |
Yes, I agree with that policy as a rule, hence why I seldom post any longer.
However, when someone thinks it’s reasonable to have an extended pop at me personally, including lists of grievances that have literally nothing to do with me, and make accusations about my motivations even on a day where yet again i’ve spent time dealing this morning with Trust related issues, I will occasionally reserve the right to tell them to shove it. | | | |
| Conflict of interest on 15:19 - Feb 28 with 1522 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Conflict of interest on 14:41 - Feb 28 by PozuelosSideys |
Ahh got it. Good to know in that case.
IMO, this is a messageboard and the likes of yourself, Clase, Ux etc are better off just using it for official comms (at least for this topic - maybe a locked thread can be used where you can post these things?).
As soon as you get dragged into all the rest of the noise, the work youve put in will just get ignored and the genuine points will just get picked apart by the tinfoil hat brigade.
We are all speculating here - me too. But its a complete waste of time trying to explain formal items with people who have never set foot inside a corporate building, let alone a boardroom with high-end finance people, even if the heart of many may be in the right place. |
On the second paragraph, I will continue to use this forum as I have done for over 15 years. What I post on here is not an official trust view (unless I make it clear that it is). I’m not about to be bullied off here by people who now use the fact that I’ve tried to help the trust (for better or worse depending on your view) as an excuse to twist things that are said on here or ( as last weekend) send me torrents of personal abuse via WhatsApp late on a Saturday night when I’m enjoying a film and a few beers with my wife. This continued into Sunday morning.
Like Lisa, I was very vocal about what happened with the last supporter director. I also voted against the proposed deal at the time and said so on here. Why some are now trying to conflate the actions of those who weren’t involved with stuff that happened back then is beyond me. Actually no it isn’t. It’s pretty obvious. |  |
| |
| Conflict of interest on 15:21 - Feb 28 with 1520 views | PozuelosSideys |
| Conflict of interest on 15:04 - Feb 28 by londonlisa2001 |
Yes, I agree with that policy as a rule, hence why I seldom post any longer.
However, when someone thinks it’s reasonable to have an extended pop at me personally, including lists of grievances that have literally nothing to do with me, and make accusations about my motivations even on a day where yet again i’ve spent time dealing this morning with Trust related issues, I will occasionally reserve the right to tell them to shove it. |
Fair enough, makes sense. Id probably react the same tbf.
I do find it really very odd that the Trust, and in particular the newer people who are privvy to the sensitive info, are the ones getting pelters. Especially since the noise towards the Sellers and American purchasers appears to have died down.
Its almost as if there is a coordinated misdirection to take the heat off and put the Trust in the firing line instead. Funny that eh? | |
| "Michu, Britton and Williams could have won 3-0 on their own. They wouldn't have required a keeper." | | Poll: | Hattricks |
| |
| Conflict of interest on 15:24 - Feb 28 with 1510 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Conflict of interest on 14:42 - Feb 28 by chad |
Thank you very much for that, very kind of you. But unlike the others I have not had the courage to stand up at election. I think personal abuse on this website also has something to do with that, and even if I were successful would be prevented by the disciplinary rules from speaking out against any policy agreed by the majority of the Board.
I also in my comments don’t wish to be seen to disregard the hard and sometimes difficult work that has been put in by the Trust Board over many years. |
Re your point about the disciplinary rules - I agree with you. The “collective responsibility” aspect of that is bollocks and one I’ve no intention of obeying. If the trust board comes to a majority decision about a way forward that I don’t I’ll accept that because that’s the way it should be. What I won’t do is pretend publicly that I agree with a decision that I think is wrong. I made that perfectly clear the day I was “interviewed” by the trust when I was first co-opted.
The rule needs reviewing and removing. I’ve said that many times as well. | |
| |
| Conflict of interest on 15:51 - Feb 28 with 1477 views | Neath_Jack |
Blimey, what a way for one female to reply to another.
One who it must be said, was not abusive in her post at all.
People with "power" and "tens of thousands of pounds" eh. |  |
| |
| Conflict of interest on 15:53 - Feb 28 with 1474 views | chad |
| Conflict of interest on 15:04 - Feb 28 by londonlisa2001 |
Yes, I agree with that policy as a rule, hence why I seldom post any longer.
However, when someone thinks it’s reasonable to have an extended pop at me personally, including lists of grievances that have literally nothing to do with me, and make accusations about my motivations even on a day where yet again i’ve spent time dealing this morning with Trust related issues, I will occasionally reserve the right to tell them to shove it. |
Perhaps you need to step back and read it again Lisa - for instance where did I ever say you were sat on the fence. In fact I said
“you did agree with the likes of Shakes, myself and many others about the serious deficiencies of the deal and certainly did speak out about it”
Or accuse you of the other things that were nothing to do with you
Or mention you were not at the various meetings I mentioned except to explain that is why you were not aware of certain issues which would have informed your comment I was replying to. I even said I understand you live away - so how was that having a go at you. I had only several miles to travel you presumably nearer 400.
I have repeatedly thanked the Trust Board for their hard work. In fact after the last meeting my husband specifically went over to thank them at the end of the meeting. And that also includes the many many hours of hard work you and a number of others who cannot always attend the meetings have put in.
But at the end of the day you did say ....
“As for the ‘they silenced some who were against the deal but not me, because I was vociferously against it’ - yeah, that’s just nonsense when you think about it, isn’t it”
As someone who was repeatedly banned for just that, I thought it was important to make you aware of the facts.
Of course I could have just gone on an expletive rant, that you were making a lie of precisely what happened to me. But thought it far more constructive to explain why I disagreed with your statement and that naturally included making you aware of issues you certainly were not responsible for and also presumably unaware of / not taking into consideration when making your comment. | | | |
| Conflict of interest on 16:01 - Feb 28 with 1458 views | chad |
| Conflict of interest on 15:24 - Feb 28 by exiledclaseboy |
Re your point about the disciplinary rules - I agree with you. The “collective responsibility” aspect of that is bollocks and one I’ve no intention of obeying. If the trust board comes to a majority decision about a way forward that I don’t I’ll accept that because that’s the way it should be. What I won’t do is pretend publicly that I agree with a decision that I think is wrong. I made that perfectly clear the day I was “interviewed” by the trust when I was first co-opted.
The rule needs reviewing and removing. I’ve said that many times as well. |
Thanks ECB that is Excellent could not agree more
Happy to be your rep when you are up for your disciplinary for disagreeing with that agreed rule ;) | | | |
| Conflict of interest on 16:14 - Feb 28 with 1434 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Conflict of interest on 15:53 - Feb 28 by chad |
Perhaps you need to step back and read it again Lisa - for instance where did I ever say you were sat on the fence. In fact I said
“you did agree with the likes of Shakes, myself and many others about the serious deficiencies of the deal and certainly did speak out about it”
Or accuse you of the other things that were nothing to do with you
Or mention you were not at the various meetings I mentioned except to explain that is why you were not aware of certain issues which would have informed your comment I was replying to. I even said I understand you live away - so how was that having a go at you. I had only several miles to travel you presumably nearer 400.
I have repeatedly thanked the Trust Board for their hard work. In fact after the last meeting my husband specifically went over to thank them at the end of the meeting. And that also includes the many many hours of hard work you and a number of others who cannot always attend the meetings have put in.
But at the end of the day you did say ....
“As for the ‘they silenced some who were against the deal but not me, because I was vociferously against it’ - yeah, that’s just nonsense when you think about it, isn’t it”
As someone who was repeatedly banned for just that, I thought it was important to make you aware of the facts.
Of course I could have just gone on an expletive rant, that you were making a lie of precisely what happened to me. But thought it far more constructive to explain why I disagreed with your statement and that naturally included making you aware of issues you certainly were not responsible for and also presumably unaware of / not taking into consideration when making your comment. |
No Spratty, you said:
“I always got the impression you were trying to tread the line / keep onside,”
as well as saying:
“Not quite as vociferously as some”
and:
“* I recall you most vigorously baying with the clique of officialdom ”
You’re clearly accusing me of only half hearted agreement with whatever was being posted on here and on another site I have visited about twice in its entire history.
On the Cooze subject you said:
“I recall you asking the question on here about payment to Trust Officials (possibly a specific Trust official). It seemed strange to me at the time“
And then:
“I recall it being suggested that you had been planted to ask that question by the Trust to finally get it out into the open after the long cover up and lies. I neither believed or disbelieved this accusation but it does reflect the affinity you were seen by some to have with officialdom on this site. ”
These are clear accusations of me being planted with information.
You made several references to me not being at meetings. You’ve done so again in this post.
You ranted for no reason about supposed treatment from Trust board members which has precisely zero to do with me.
The comment to which you replied and are referencing yet again, has absolutely no relevance to whatever you’re going on about. It’s a sarcastic point to E20 in reply to him saying that the reason I wasn’t banned is because I was too vociferous and pointing out it’s nonsense.
Now I’m leaving it there. To be honest Spratty, I’ve publicly backed you on here and privately backed you off here in a number of occasions. Even when your posts have been unreasonable, I’ve supported your wholehearted championing of Trust issues.
But enough is enough. Im simply not having you make accusations against my integrity and putting up with it. I will simply ignore anything whatsoever from you in the future. If you have battles against other Trust people or board members, take it up with them, not with me. [Post edited 28 Feb 2019 16:23]
| | | |
| Conflict of interest on 16:21 - Feb 28 with 1420 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Conflict of interest on 15:51 - Feb 28 by Neath_Jack |
Blimey, what a way for one female to reply to another.
One who it must be said, was not abusive in her post at all.
People with "power" and "tens of thousands of pounds" eh. |
Spratty was far more abusive in her post than I was in reply. She questioned my integrity and called me a liar, while I merely told her to f*ck off.
But since it offend you, why don’t you send me a list of words that you find acceptable for women and those which only men should use.
Patroning tosser. | | | |
| Conflict of interest on 16:55 - Feb 28 with 1370 views | whitemountains |
| Conflict of interest on 16:21 - Feb 28 by londonlisa2001 |
Spratty was far more abusive in her post than I was in reply. She questioned my integrity and called me a liar, while I merely told her to f*ck off.
But since it offend you, why don’t you send me a list of words that you find acceptable for women and those which only men should use.
Patroning tosser. |
This has gone well. An other half decent thread crashes and burns . | | | |
| Conflict of interest on 17:18 - Feb 28 with 1341 views | waynekerr55 |
| Conflict of interest on 16:55 - Feb 28 by whitemountains |
This has gone well. An other half decent thread crashes and burns . |
Half decent in what way? Because it allows the myth that the site is a propaganda tool for the Trust to be perpetuated?
Funny how you've turned up recently? Nothing to do with the seller's solicitors being shown up as not the sharpest knives in the dishwasher, hey? [Post edited 28 Feb 2019 17:18]
|  |
| |
| Conflict of interest on 17:30 - Feb 28 with 1416 views | chad |
| Conflict of interest on 16:21 - Feb 28 by londonlisa2001 |
Spratty was far more abusive in her post than I was in reply. She questioned my integrity and called me a liar, while I merely told her to f*ck off.
But since it offend you, why don’t you send me a list of words that you find acceptable for women and those which only men should use.
Patroning tosser. |
Lisa seriously I think you said far more than that, now tell me
where did I call you a liar
Where did I question your integrity
And well done for all the work you did today, i know what it is like to work hard and feel unappreciated. I am happy to discuss anything I actually said that you disagree with. | | | |
| Conflict of interest on 17:42 - Feb 28 with 1397 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Conflict of interest on 17:30 - Feb 28 by chad |
Lisa seriously I think you said far more than that, now tell me
where did I call you a liar
Where did I question your integrity
And well done for all the work you did today, i know what it is like to work hard and feel unappreciated. I am happy to discuss anything I actually said that you disagree with. |
I’ve already answered you with details in the post before the one you’re replying to and I’m not doing so again. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
