Yes I see what you have done there. The original comment was made alluding to the comparison between the two. It's there for all to see. I guess your next line will be that the post is open to interpretation. Nice.
That's YOUR interpretation, it's not necessarily the ONLY one. I'll wait to see if Castro elaborates.
The only other interpretation is that Mr Allam is a northern dead DJ/TV presenter/marathon runner. Don't I look the fool!
. Brilliant. Let me guess you'll carry this on for ages twisting people in knots. Well go ahead dutch. Cos as i said earlier this is playing into Mr Allams hands. For you winning petty battles and loking after your mates on the internet is important. Peoplea re reading these comments and forming opinions.
Eh? I answered a question, I've kept out of the rest of this because it was clear from the first post where it would go. No good trying to make a difference of opinions on a message board a moderation or personal issue, it's boring and bollocks.
Mr DMD if you honestly think I look the fool then I really do think this is CI 2.0. Jimmy Saville was both of the two things I have stated. Not a lot of wiggle room there I'm afraid.
He was, but that's not the only interpretation of that post. I may not like the post, but it doesn't breach any rules, if you want to discuss the post, do it with the person that made it.
What's your interpretation of the post? Deletions made by a moderator are at a moderators discretion. Are you really going to condone this type of post. Set's a dangerous precedent.
Argue your point with the person that made it. As far as it is, until the poster elaborates it doesn't breach any rules. The dangerous precedent would be deleting posts because some people read them in a way the poster never intended.
My original post was in response to theirs. But the poster appears to have run away. I fail to see why you're having a 'dig' at me!
I'm not having a 'dig' at anyone, simply pointing out where you need to aim your questions. It's a message board, not a chat room. Sometimes people post and call back days later to reply.
Interesting that you avoided my first question though. Vague potentially libellous comments are acceptable until further elaboration is provided then? Thanks for clarifying!
Oh dear. There are some people on here who seem incapable of any thought and who see things in black and white only, no shades of grey. Anyone with any sense would have seen what I was getting at. People were saying that because Allam has been generous to charities we should accept everything he does. The fact he has been a benefactor to charities means we can't disapprove of other things he wants to do, like change the name of our club (and going back on what he said originally) seemingly. Savile was a big contributor to charity and raiser of funds. But no one is quite rightly going to let that stop them of disapproving of other actions by him. You can separate the two different things. Anyone with the mental faculties of an averagely intelligent primary school pupil could see that. Which would appear to rule out a lot on here.
Mr DMD, I never asked a question of the poster Castro. I simply stated my opinion/interpretation/response to their message on this message board (not a chat room, got it). I never used a question mark. Thanks for putting me straight though.
Nicely done. Put the suggestion out there that two people who have nothing in common really actually do. Then when people call you on it you come up with this ^ One is a serial sex offender who also raised money for charity. Don't remember him giving his own money though. The other is a man who has given his own money to good causes and wants to change/amend the name of a football club. Yes I can see why you would compare the two.
Who suggested; "because Allam has been generous to charities we should accept everything he does."? And if you wanted to illustrate that point why not use someone like Lance Armstrong for example. The truth is that by using Saville you reached deep into your sewer of a mind and for that you belong in the same inferior bracket as Agron.
As I said, some people are too dense to get anything. As you prove. No doubt if someone said in mitigation of someone else that they were kind to animals and I said so was Hitler you would say I was accusing them of being a right wing lunatic responsible for the murder of millions. I will repeat for the slow of learning, that you can approve of one thing someone does whilst disapproving of other things they do.
