Wanderers in £2.5m funding hole but "players will be paid" insists co-owner Ken Anderson

bwfc1874 wrote:

Boggersbelief wrote:
Oh, well if Carl said so

Just had a look at his Twitter, here's another knowledge gift from Carl -

Swimming pool lockers offer cheap long-term storage for all your smaller items.

Can see why you quoted him Sluff, clearly knows his stuff.

Fuck me you just can't let things go can you?

Maybe it turns out that I'm wrong about the ST and they turn out to be the best thing since sliced bread - so what?  At the end of the day they would have proved me wrong, I've been wrong before and life still carried on.

But for you this is personal, you just want to keep arguing against me for no other reason than it amuses you.  

There's plenty other people on this thread who have expressed negativity against the ST's Steering Groups behaviour up to now and you don't go out of your way to attempt to argue them into the ground.

Christ the blog extract I posted above you even agreed with and it more or less only repeated what I (and plenty of others on Nuts and elsewhere) have said in the past.

You try to make out that my view of the ST is tainted by the behaviour of one of the Steering Group members actions to physically damage the reputation of this site when we first started Nuts.

Its not.

I might be a sad and pathetic person in many ways but one way that I am not is by harbouring grudges and carrying on internet vendettas against some bloke I've never met, nor wish to, over something shite and trivial said or done on the ether.

For you to go hunting down and examine some random blokes twitter comments history simply to find something, anything, simply to carry on a argument no one else is interested in (even me!) is fucking pathetic in the extreme.

If you want to waste chunks of your life attempting to carry on some meaningless argument with me please continue to do so but the more you do the more the saddo it makes you in the eyes of everyone else.

My views about the ST are fair and reasoned - I'm certainly far from not alone in having these views.  

Your continuation of arguing the toss against them in any which way you can, which has dragged on into months now, simply because it is I that have expressed them (and not someone else on here) makes you the one to look bitter, paranoid and obsessed - not me.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Why would 74 care that random blokes over the Internet think he's a saddo though Sluffy?

Christ just trying to lighten the mood a bit with breezeblocks tweet, no need for the rant Sluffy.

I've already said what my issue is with your ST ramblings, you twist things far too much in order to fit your own narrative I find it irritating. Sorry if you feel victimised in some way, but when I read the passages you write based on misinformation and half-truths I can't stop myself from posting to balance it out a bit - it's an affliction for me in many ways.

Stop replying to me if your so annoyed.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Good job Sluffy can take a joke. I can't help myself.

Boggersbelief wrote:Why would 74 care that random blokes over the Internet think he's a saddo though Sluffy?

Probably for the same reason that random blokes over the Internet think someone wasting their life away posting as a fake and meaningless account is a saddo too - because of the truth within it.

Sluffy wrote:

Boggersbelief wrote:Why would 74 care that random blokes over the Internet think he's a saddo though Sluffy?

Probably for the same reason that random blokes over the Internet think someone wasting their life away posting as a fake and meaningless account is a saddo too - because of the truth within it.

No matter what your views are, there's no need at all to get personal and tell me posting on your forum is a waste of my life.

boltonbonce wrote:BWFCST's Letter To The Football League
As reported in the Bolton News online on 23 May 2016, we would confirm that we have again made contact with the Football League by letter to reiterate the questions that we raised some 11 weeks ago.
As you may recall, the initial list of questions was issued in an attempt to obtain transparency on matters relating to the stability and sustainability of our club on behalf of the fans and was openly addressed to any prospective future owner. To date we have still not received any detailed response to the matters raised.
We would also confirm that the Football League have responded to our letter by offering to meet with us in the near future to discuss matters in more detail. We will be taking up this offer and will report back to BWFCST members as soon as the meeting has been scheduled and held.

Interesting, not sure what the Football League would tell them that they weren't willing to tell the press though.

bwfc1874 wrote:Christ just trying to lighten the mood a bit with breezeblocks tweet, no need for the rant Sluffy.

I've already said what my issue is with your ST ramblings, you twist things far too much in order to fit your own narrative I find it irritating. Sorry if you feel victimised in some way, but when I read the passages you write based on misinformation and half-truths I can't stop myself from posting to balance it out a bit - it's an affliction for me in many ways.

Stop replying to me if your so annoyed.

Me stop replying to you???

It's the other way around mate it is you going to extreme lengths (like digging around in random other peoples twitter history) just to keep on endlessly arguing the toss simply because I posted something.

It is an affliction of yours to correct misinformation and half truths you say?

Pull the other one - you would need to live to the end of time and beyond to sort out those that have already been spouted on the internet - so how come I'm so privileged to have been given your undivided attention?

Couldn't have anything to do with a previous internet spat from a few years back could it?

And you claim I'm the obsessive one!

Digging around in an Internet history? I looked at his Twitter feed, hardly an invasion of privacy. Is that so different from you quoting a tweet from the same Twitter account? 

What Internet spat have you and me ever had? (Aside from this one, I suppose this is now classed as a spat?)

bwfc1874 wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

Boggersbelief wrote:Why would 74 care that random blokes over the Internet think he's a saddo though Sluffy?

Probably for the same reason that random blokes over the Internet think someone wasting their life away posting as a fake and meaningless account is a saddo too - because of the truth within it.

No matter what your views are, there's no need at all to get personal and tell me posting on your forum is a waste of my life.

If you want to 'invest' it then by arguing for arguing sake then please carry on.

It's your life to 'invest' in any way you want.

Sluffy wrote:

Boggersbelief wrote:Why would 74 care that random blokes over the Internet think he's a saddo though Sluffy?

Probably for the same reason that random blokes over the Internet think someone wasting their life away posting as a fake and meaningless account is a saddo too - because of the truth within it.

74 isn't fake you've gone way too far

Don't get the invest reference. Whatever, I tried to draw a line under it earlier, not sure why you're going on so much. 

I 'argue' with you because I disagree with your POV. You seem desperate to portray yourself as a victim in this, yet you reply to my points as often as I reply to yours. If you don't want to debate the points of then stop replying to me. It really is that simple.

bwfc1874 wrote:Digging around in an Internet history? I looked at his Twitter feed, hardly an invasion of privacy. Is that so different from you quoting a tweet from the same Twitter account? 

What Internet spat have you and me ever had? (Aside from this one, I suppose this is now classed as a spat?)

I quoted a tweet from the ST's twitter account and a reply to it.

I didn't see any reason to go out of my way and check out the home site and backgrounds of either person for ammunition to carry on your never ending argument with me.

As for previous history between us two, it seems to me you have a particular reason for exclusively never endedly banging on about the things I post so it seems reasonable to suspect you had history with me before under a different user name.

Or do you simply consider me deserving of your undivided argumentative attention forsaking all others in order to do so?

The breezeblock tweet was intended to take the piss a bit - he does actually post some interesting stuff actually and I'm familiar with the account. Im genuinely shocked it has caused you to go off like this, wasn't my intention so apologies if it's wound you up.

As for previous history, no I've never posted from another account, we haven't had an argument before. I just find your posts on the ST irritating and spun, I won't be apologising for holding that opinion. There's nothing personal to it for me if I see something I disagree with I say it.

bwfc1874 wrote:Don't get the invest reference. Whatever, I tried to draw a line under it earlier, not sure why you're going on so much. 

I 'argue' with you because I disagree with your POV. You seem desperate to portray yourself as a victim in this, yet you reply to my points as often as I reply to yours. If you don't want to debate the points of then stop replying to me. It really is that simple.

The thing is though I post something about the ST - you argue with it.

Every time.

With out fail.

You don't argue with many other people on here who express similar views.

Just me.

If I do reply to your posts it is because I try and answer the points you raise, which then sets you off arguing about something else!

I really did think you hit an all time low today digging around in random peoples twitter history simply to carry on the shit you've been doing.

I'll still post about the ST and no doubt you will still post in reply to what I have said.

That isn't me arguing with you - it is you arguing with everything I say in relation to the ST.

It's a one side never ending argument.

I post about the ST - you argue.

I post some news about the ST - you argue.

I post something different about the ST - you argue.

I'm not going to stop posting on here so I guess you will just carry on your argument every time I post on the ST.

Seems obsessive on your part but carry on, I won't be losing any sleep over it.

Clearly you don't like being challenged, post what you want about the ST and I'll ignore it. I don't want to be responsible for the forum owner having a full scale meltdown Karly would kill me.

But trying to portray my quoting a tweet (clearly intended to take the piss out of you a bit) as some low move is laughable. You would have to be thick as pig shit to take that seriously, you're fooling nobody and I don't even think you're as outraged as you're trying to imply.

Getting a bit late for me anyway, night!

They're still at it Herbert. Put the kettle on.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Anybody notice that since I raised the matter this afternoon of the retweet of the 'shyster' owners tweet from Breezeblock by the official ST twitter account, that it has been taken down.

Not the first time that they've reacted to things said on here either.

They still won't take up my offer to use Nuts as platform to interact with the Bolton fan base throughout the world and use the forum as it is intended - for debate - to put forward the case for joining the Supporters Trust, its strengths and weaknesses - and convincing, or attempting to, the many who so far have not joined.

If it really is such a wonderful thing and they are doing everything fair and properly then why not talk to us all then?

There really are no strings attached to this offer.

The ball is still in your court.

bwfc1874 wrote:Clearly you don't like being challenged, post what you want about the ST and I'll ignore it. I don't want to be responsible for the forum owner having a full scale meltdown Karly would kill me.

But trying to portray my quoting a tweet (clearly intended to take the piss out of you a bit) as some low move is laughable. You would have to be thick as pig shit to take that seriously, you're fooling nobody and I don't even think you're as outraged as you're trying to imply.

Getting a bit late for me anyway, night!

I'm seldom outraged at anything posted on a forum although I am often amazed at the lengths some people go to just to try and win an argument against a complete stranger, over nothing much at all really.

Maybe I am as thick as pig shit and I really had a full scale internet meltdown also, or maybe I simply tried to open your eyes to what you've actually been doing - as perhaps the big picture may have been lost to you in your quest for argumentative material?

Whatever the case it doesn't really matter much in the end.

Have a peaceful nights sleep.