 | Forum
Reply | Garry and his substitutons, he needs help.
at 01:27 12 Feb 2015
I think it's obvious and was horrified when I heard Lisa's attempted explanation. Bacon was an obvious reference to the fact he was Danish and bender... Well we all know what that is reference to. To say it wasn't bad because Darran said it is terrible. And am I right in thinking he left the site after that? Makes me sad, truly. |
| Forum
Reply | This jackarmy site
at 17:09 11 Feb 2015
OMG. 29 pages now!? This thread is disturbing. Peoples obsession with Parlay has hit new lows, and he is still knocking you all out of the ballpark. people need a long hard look at themselves. |
| Forum
Reply | This jackarmy site
at 16:49 10 Feb 2015
He has said he is selling his business yes, but he has not claimed to be in Australia once. He said he is over here to conclude business but lives over there usually (and proved it beyond doubt). You seem to be making things up to suit whatever agenda you have against him.
He also hasn't said he isn't going to the forum, you made that up too. He said he will answer that question if another poster answers one he asked first. What was disgusting that he said about Ched Evans? He said solid proof is needed. That is not disgusting is it?
I have no idea if he has offered to meet you. I have seen him offer you a chat many times and you just ignore it and continue to throw unwarranted abuse his way. |
| Forum
Reply | This jackarmy site
at 16:36 10 Feb 2015
He has stated several times he in in the UK. I have no idea why you continue to try to bully and abuse him, he has offered you a chance to chat and iron out the differences and you seem fearful to. You do have a habit of dragging these threads down. |
| Forum
Reply | So Cheds latest statement was more lies then
at 09:49 17 Jan 2015
This is still rumbling on I see? My stance is the same and it looks a bad original decision which now hampers the appeal process as there is a lack of evidence for either side.
Jackonicko, what you have posted is exactly what Parlay just said. He's right. An appeal is hard to get if there is little to no evidence in the first place, it certainly doesnt compound the guilty verdict as some are suggesting. |
| Forum
Reply | Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters
at 23:43 10 Jan 2015
I hope that too. Although if I could not remember who did it and the case was awfully weak about the guilt of the man accused - I wouldn't want him going down for it either. |
| Forum
Reply | Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters
at 23:28 10 Jan 2015
So if you ever get sentenced for something you haven't done, I will remind you that you should just suck it up because the majority that are sent down are guilty.
great theory. (don't tell me, ive taken what you said out of context again right?) |
| Forum
Reply | Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters
at 22:15 10 Jan 2015
This thread is about the banning of Shaky and Parlay, the reason for this was clear for anybody on the Ched Evans thread and those reasons have been explained.
saying they trolled, or making up a scenario that they both threatened via PM or indeed that they didn't allow anybody opinions - is just a fanciful make believe stories to justify two pretty shocking decisions.
two people have been banned for having an opinion someone didn't agree with, nothing less nothing more. |
| Forum
Reply | Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters
at 21:58 10 Jan 2015
Yesterday, you told us that in your time in the force you saw people who had stolen cars and walked away from the burning chassis after crashing it, get found not guilty.
Surely by that token that is you questioning the verdict? Or do you accept that your eyes were deceiving you and they were innocent after all.
It seems you are being incredibly contradictory due to your apparent dislike and prejudice against males. If the complainant is a woman then what she says goes (or didn't say in this case) yet if its a man then they can lump it. |
| Forum
Reply | Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters
at 21:46 10 Jan 2015
twice you have accused me of that, and twice I just simply quoted you.
you just said that maybe Parlay and Shaky had been banned for legal reasons for disagreeing with the verdict.
I have just made the point that it is not illegal to disagree with a verdict. Ergo - not out of context. |
| Forum
Reply | Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters
at 21:22 10 Jan 2015
Absolutely, it just seems some are making out they were trolling or were not allowing other people opinions, which of course would be disingenuous because that couldn't be further from the truth.
you don't have to agree with their opinion to see being banned for having an opinion is ridiculous and that is not a president we all seemingly have to continue under. |
| Forum
Reply | Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters
at 21:00 10 Jan 2015
So who didn't accept, by accept you sound like you mean allow?, an opposing view then? I didn't see anybody not allow another opinion, that goes for both sides. they just didn't agree.
the only people who haven't been allowed their opinion are Shaky and Parlay. to suggest it is the other way around is ludicrous. |
| Forum
Reply | Phil Sumbler, Planet Swans, Bans, disliking posters
at 20:56 10 Jan 2015
Nothing untoward was said Lord Bony, I followed the thread from start to finish.
Shaky was banned for replying in kind to Phil insulting him (for no apparent reason either) and Parlay was banned for making Phil look rather stupid later on, over a spellcheck Phil tried to attribute to Parlay when indeed the part he was referencing - was a direct quote from Phil, so it was his error not Parlays... and that was it for Parlay.
there really isn't any more to it, and it really just IS that petty. hard to believe huh? |
| | SkewenJack
|
Site Scores| Forum Votes: | 23 | | Comment Votes: | 0 | | Prediction League: | 0 | | TOTAL: | 23 |
|
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.