You'll make a good Mum one day!

Handbags!!!

I couldn't have put it better myself.

If you actually bother to read what happened, ME made (another) personal attack (as he does all over the place, he's on the permanent wind-up now) and as I was one target on this occasion I gave it one reply (making it clear that was that). He's trying to wind it up, but again as you can see, I've ignored it.

So if you feel the need to tell anyone to STFU, don't include someone who already had. It's illogical.

I also resent your "every post on here" remark. I reserve the right if I so choose to reply to personal attacks (as no doubt would you) but most of what I post is, so far as I am concerned, on topic and reasoned, and in no way 'bickering' etc. For example you may have the view that most people want McNamara out. Do you insist that nobody disagrees with you? Or if they do, is it 'bickering'?

More Handbags!!! Though i have to admit i saw it coming from you.

FFS! Paul was actually fair enough with his comments but still "the other two" have to make some issue out of it.

The problem with you FA is that you get involved with any argument you can then act all innocent and pretend you know nothing about it when people show you up. You also try to claim that you had one reply when it is pretty clear that you (like me) always want to have the last word on anything as you have tried to do a couple of posts above this one. You also claim that your posts are "fair and reasoned" yet this comment...



Where then, did he tell you to STFU? Show me in a "fair and reasoned way" if you please?

As for Adey? It is amusing that you claim that I "sometimes manage to goad you" yet you post the following



After BP tried to diffuse the situation in a clear attempt to reignite the flames. Very hypocritical I would suggest but, in true Adey style, I guess the "people will decide".

It is a perfect time for me to step back from this as I actually agree with Paul but whether the "other two" can find comfort in not wanting to nitpick on any small issue is another matter. Paul has already had it on here and if it is not him then no doubt it will be someone else. Good luck Paul, you will need it.

Heaven help us, STILL he goes on! Yet more dishonest deliberate misrepresentation and "poor-me" whining when folk show this attention-seeker up for what he is. He seems to think he can get away with dishonest smears and personal attacks when it suits him, but then when he is on a losing run everyone should be friends again.

You might have noticed that (unlike him with his regular and multiple quotes) I did not refer to anyone in that short post above that he quoted? So there was no need for any individual to react at all. Yet funnily enough, he seemed to see himself in what I said. Wonder why?

Anyway, as I said I will continue to try and ignore him and not rise to the bait, so threads don't get derailed. But its not helped by other highly-disenchanted fans rallying to his perverted cause because it provides an easy focus for discontent without the requirement for practicable solutions.

With regard to that particular exchange, if you read it, you would have to agree that I promised to, and did, let you have the last word, or indeed several last words on that point. I haven't, and won't respond further, ditto the couple of further threads where my only response to personal barbs is just to point out what you're doing.

Of course, if you make another point - like the few you've just made - you presumably want people to read and reply? If not - why post? What is it that upsets you when posts you write are responded to, and is this upset a reasonable reaction?


... was fair and reasoned . . .




Well it is, but then trust me, any time would fit the bill for that.


The common denominator in the threads he is complaining about would seem to be you. The person who starts off this stuff would also seem to be you. The person who makes repeated efforts to get a rise would also seem to be you.

As a Bradford fan on the Bradford fans' forum, you'll find that when you continue to post anti-Bulls stuff especially, you may well be shown up for what you are doing.

What I would think is delusional in the extreme though, is if you think, as you seem to think, that all your 'thoughts' should be left posted up there, sacrosanct, in the way some followers regard the verses of the Koran or the Bible, without the right of response, analysis, disagreement or reply allowed for the points that you make, or your targets. Have you now awarded yourself exclusive posting rights? If not, why is it you believe that you are entitled to them?

If Paul124897 or anyone else wants to read your stuff unopposed they should say so. If they agree with you, I never said anyone wasn't free to do that. And if Paul124897 is fair then while he may not like my disagreeing with you, he should realise that not disagreeing with you would leave you to post unopposed.

Paul124897, I have no intention of sending such replies as this via the PM system, for simple reasons. I have no interest in any private spat with ME. One of the reasons I sometimes reply to ME (and others) is to show such Bulls SUPPORTERS as may read the threads that the forum hasn't been surrendered to the NT and that we don't all think like ME or other Fifth Columnists. PMs would not achieve this, or indeed anything. And I note that ironically you addressed your comments to the audience, and not by PMs.

Equating replies with ME's originating material makes as much sense to me as blaming the smell of the broken sewer on the workmen trying to fix it.

Ok.

It's both right and proper that differing views are allowed to be raised here.

Hell, it's rights and proper that differing "styles" be here too.

Some people are more articulate than others, some more obtuse, some logical and some just sporting for the wind and to try and prove that they "were right"

Some are very skilled in acting more than a tad machiavellian in choosing to answer only the points that serve their purpose and consistently / consciously elect to merely obfuscate the original point(s) being made.

I wasn't trying to pour oil on choppy water. I certainly wouldn't identify the three posters, as in the earlier comment, as being "the issue".

In reality it all comes down to Addey's point of the positive/negative tendencies within any club.

Given that all of this has run and run for quite sometime now I was only asking whether people thought it had really run it's course and so was only getting repetitive.

<and, just for the (Daily ) record, I suspect I'm more in the positive tendancy . . . though with less and less to be positive about>

That is a most poetic description