The Click bait site, youff generation, and mental health issues - all involved over a game ffs!

It's definitely a yes. When the Supporters Trust bring him up at meetings you know he's a wrongun

Ah, now....you see.....you can't just leave it at that, can you?

Context and specifics, please.

Sluffy is,in fact, a secret member of the ST. Here he is on the left at our last meeting. 
He thinks we don't know.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I wasn't there so don't know except for the fact that he was brought up several times as a figure of extreme extreme extreme derision

Kane57 wrote:I wasn't there so don't know except for the fact that he was brought up several times as a figure of extreme extreme extreme derision

Comical, I wasn't there but can state the facts, and context.

some people are as bad as each other.

Fabians Right Peg wrote:

Kane57 wrote:I wasn't there so don't know except for the fact that he was brought up several times as a figure of extreme extreme extreme derision

Comical, I wasn't there but can state the facts, and context.

some people are as bad as each other.

The link isn't hard to fathom.

The head of the ST isn't a huge fan of yer man.

Kane57 wrote:

Fabians Right Peg wrote:

Kane57 wrote:I wasn't there so don't know except for the fact that he was brought up several times as a figure of extreme extreme extreme derision

Comical, I wasn't there but can state the facts, and context.

some people are as bad as each other.

The link isn't hard to fathom.

The head of the ST isn't a huge fan of yer man.

Think you will find mine and sluffy's view of the ST slightly different, he is far from my man, however what I can't fathom  is the link between your claim that you know the facts despite acknowledging that you where not there.

As bread said context and specifics needed.

The leader of the Trust thinks Sluffy is a barmpot, and that he has been often brought up in Trust meetings.

The context of how he came up on these meetings isn't known to me, but that he thinks Sluffy is a headcase certainly is.

Kane57 wrote:The context of how he came up on these meetings isn't known to me, but that he thinks Sluffy is a headcase certainly is.

If you don't know the context then your claim that he was brought up as a 'figure of extreme extreme extreme derision' is assumed then based on what you believe to be the ST's leadership view of sluffy and so is opinion not fact?

Fabians Right Peg wrote:

Kane57 wrote:The context of how he came up on these meetings isn't known to me, but that he thinks Sluffy is a headcase certainly is.

If you don't know the context then your claim that he was brought up as a 'figure of extreme extreme extreme derision' is assumed then based on what you believe to be the ST's leadership view of sluffy and so is opinion not fact?

I don't know why he was brought up, but I do know that when he was brought up he was resoundly mocked. Is that clear enough?

I've had some fun at Sluffy's expense in regard to his attitude to the ST, which he's taken with good grace,but to learn that he's being discussed at ST meetings,is rather disturbing.
Haven't they got more important matters to discuss?

More importantly, why are they discussing sluffy and not me?

Natasha Whittam wrote:More importantly, why are they discussing sluffy and not me?

Fear.

Kane57 wrote:

Fabians Right Peg wrote:

Kane57 wrote:The context of how he came up on these meetings isn't known to me, but that he thinks Sluffy is a headcase certainly is.

If you don't know the context then your claim that he was brought up as a 'figure of extreme extreme extreme derision' is assumed then based on what you believe to be the ST's leadership view of sluffy and so is opinion not fact?

I don't know why he was brought up, but I do know that when he was brought up he was resoundly mocked. Is that clear enough?

It seems clear that at best you know half a story but seem to be presenting them as facts and that you only seem to appear on this board to snipe at Sluffy for his opinions.

The fact that people like you and the idiots on the ST board seem to think that wasting time having a go at people with differing views like sluffy is part of their mandate explains why a lot of the original momentum behind the trust was lost.

Kane57 wrote:I think the only person taking this remotely seriously is you Sluffy which isn't really a surprise

If you say so.

You couldn't make shit like this up really, you have a bloke who lives his life on social media, Manning (with over 113,000 tweets on twitter alone!), who spends another chunk of his life wrapped up in a game played by teenager and sad lonely geeks (Football Manager), who comes to post on another site to his, to slag me off and telling me that I take stuff like this seriously!

How did he know about this thread?

Because my personal troll Bread went over to Mannings site to slag me off  - (by posting under a fake user name) - by telling him and anyone else who reads the comments how 'seriously' I take things such as this!

How fucking sad and pathetic for a grown man even to think about doing something so juvenile, let alone actually doing it!

Then to put icing on the cake, we are told by Manning that the all powerful ST board pride themselves in slagging me off, simply because I laugh at how they've cocked almost everything they have touched to date!

For God's sake I didn't realise that I was their first order of business on their agendas, whilst the club is going through its darkest financial days in its entire history.

Well I'm honoured in a way that I top their agenda beating their next two most serious items of business namely which former players birthday is it today and how much discount their members can get off from the local pizza!

Shows how full of their self importance they are if I'm more important to them than anything else!

Absolutely farcical, yet I'm the one apparently who is taking things seriously and Manning, Bread, and the ST Board are all upstanding citizens who keep themselves to themselves.

Yeah right.

Jog on.

I don't know if you're first on their agenda, but the bit about laughing at you seems pretty much warranted.

S'only the internet though, innit....?

Not important really........obviously.

Bread2.0 wrote:S'only the internet though, innit....?

Not important really........obviously.

Personal troll. Superb.

Didn't apply for it.

Had it conferred upon me.

Doesn't pay that well if I'm honest but at least it's a job.

Kane57 wrote:I don't know if you're first on their agenda, but the bit about laughing at you seems pretty much warranted.

Sticks and stones may break my bones but somebody laughing at me will never hurt me.

Anyway people in glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones - here's a post from 'Sweep' on Wanderers Ways in the last hour or so -

"Manning is a self serving non-entity cunt, who is part of the largest Wanderers "click bait" site that exists, and they revel in our decline."

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

Far from being the only comment about you or your blog site over the that year or so is it!