karlypants wrote:You say you don't like the way the atmosphere was on here. We have had around week that has been enjoyable on here and it started to feel like a cloud had lifted yet the first opportunity you get you carry on your vendetta and have a pop at Wanderlust.
Is this the reason why you got potted on Burnden Aces for being obnoxios and having vendetta's on there all the time?
If you don't like it here anymore then why do you continue?
Bit of a strange post if you don't mind me saying so?
If I was so apparently obnoxious on Burnden Aces then why did Nat and RT want me to create a new forum (which became Nuts) with them and Biggie, Keegan and basically 90% of those on BA to jump ship to come on here?
As for having a 'vendetta' well that's a laugh, it's just the internet and I don't take it seriously. Up to you if you believe that though.
And as for the 'first opportunity' are you being serious?
Wanderlust post a link and stated his views - fair enough, it was interesting enough for me to want to have a look at the article.
Ok so far?
When I read the article it clearly wasn't anything to do with What Wanderlust had said???
All I did was to point that out - this is what I posted, is it really obnoxious of me, do I look as though I'm pursuing some sort of a vendetta??
Sluffy wrote:
Eh???
The article doesn't say anything at all like that???
Have you actually read it?
What it actually says is that there appears to be a gagging order in force until the end of the Platinum jubilee that prevents the woman saying he raped her and the bloke saying he's never met her.
The order would seem to apply to the other way around too - hence he can't deny he raped her and she can't claim she met him.
Seems they can say whatever they want after the jubilee.
Also it seems that the settlement was he pays her £10m and his mum donates £2m from her private wealth to the woman's charity in her sons name.
No public monies involved.
This my reply back to Wanderlust following his reply - is this obnoxious of me, does it show I'm in vendetta mode?
Sluffy wrote: wanderlust wrote:Yes. Have you?
Pretty sure the headline says
Prince Andrew ‘agrees to
never repeat denial he raped Virginia Giuffre’
Yes I have and yes it does - but it certainly isn't what the article actually explained the position to be was it?
"However, the stipulation is only thought to remain in place until after the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee celebrations, meaning Ms Giuffre may be free to break her silence in a matter of months.
A friend of the Duke told the newspaper: ‘If you’re going to go for legal resolution at those sorts of prices then you want silence – but what we’ve got is silence for the Platinum Jubilee".
So you've either not read the article as I suspected, or you've clearly not understood it.
So which one is it?
Again this my reply back to Wanderlust's response - where's the obnoxiousness from me? How am I seemingly carrying out some vendetta???
Am I not just simply stating the truth, making fair comment?
Sluffy wrote: wanderlust wrote:Neither - I only flagged it up so that everyone could make their own minds about it - ideally without trying to interpret what I think in order to score points.
As it happens, I'm with KP on this i.e. clickbait but I actually would like to know what was actually agreed as the headline part suggests something unusual - which as I mentioned is new on me. Maybe we should just wait until somebody who actually knows provides the answer?
Eh???
I don't have to interpret what you think - you wrote it down for us all to read ffs, or have you forgotten that?
Maybe if you'd bothered to read your own link before posting it you might have realised the headline didn't match the actual story wouldn't you!
Maybe then you would have bothered posting it up and waited yourself until a journalist who did know what was actually going on wrote about it.
What is it that is wrong with you, you've clearly not read the article initially, then lied to say you had and now you're telling us you hadn't read it after all because you now know it to be clickbait???
If you knew it to be clickbait and a story that ran completely contrary to its own headline and one you now yourself admit doesn't know what it is talking about, then why did you post it up, link to it and rabbit on about your thoughts just based on the headline you'd read???
Then today we get this from Wanderlust and my reply.
I've not said anything about what he believes - why his he making that up?
He tells me based on this figment of his imagination that I'm a liar, incapable of rational logic, a shit stirrer, attempting to make myself look clever, wumming, stalking and killing the site!!!
I though I was extremely restraint in my reply bearing all that in mind.
Sluffy wrote: wanderlust wrote: Sluffy wrote:Why tell lies?
Don't start your nonsense again.
I clearly said "this seems strange to me" - at no point did I say "this is what I believe" so calling me a liar is bang out of order.
Worse than that you then claimed that I said I believed what the article said - even though the article presents two contradictory perspectives so that would be impossible anyway - thereby exposing yourself either as a liar or incapable of rational logic.
Just stop shit-stirring. If you think it makes you look clever, it doesn't.
Your wumming and stalking is winding everyone up and you're killing the site.
I never claimed you believed anything!!!!
Read what I've posted, nothing there about me claiming you believed anything at all - so stop making up stuff to dig yourself out of the hole you've put yourself in.
I asked you directly if you had read the article before you posted it - you said you had - it's clear to all now that you hadn't.
I'm not wumming, stalking or trolling you (or anyone else for that matter).
You're the one who posted a link up, posted your opinions about it and obviously became embarrassed about doing so when I pointed out the article didn't in fact go on to say what the headline had claimed.
There could only be two reasons why you would post up your initial thoughts and opinions based totally and unquestionably on a clearly misleading headline and that was because you didn't bother reading the article itself or that you read it and didn't understand it.
You said it was neither.
I don't believe that to be truthful and I suspect no one else believes you were telling the truth either.
I fail to see where you perceive me to have been obnoxious in any way, shape or form and mystified why you think what I've posted constitute to me in some way holding a vendetta?
Home
