Seems more daft that genius to me, Hatty. All you've done is make random abusive posts that aren't directed at anyone or anything in particular; well they are not able to be read that way on my gizmos as you have added no quotes or references, have you? If, as you say, they are direct quotes of Mr Lahey, have you taken them out of context and was he, unlike you, directing them at an identifiable poster, for whatever reason? As you mainly post so-called ironic (much over-used on here) nonsense, it can't be trusted that what you say is true, as you'll probably just claim you are being ironic to all of those who can't unravel your dark secret about your posts. I can recall the one where Ben did this, he quoted chapter and verse, it was accurate, it was funny, it was irrefutable; unlike yours.
This is very hard to deny, except throw away is a tad harsh, we simply got the lead too early and couldn't defend it, but that's a habit of ours.
Fez, pull your pants up. Look at his post history, they're all there, all near the top. In the 20 pages you can view, there's lots in offer. Not a single one is taken out of context, each post is exactly as he posted it to someone else in its entirety. If I'd offered quote marks, it would have given everything away, hence why I edited the first post on the thread. It gave me a smile, maybe Mr. Lahey will practice what he preaches? Edit: you say you can recall the one where Ben did this? He's always doing it. Perhaps the real problem is you're just not very observant.
In what way is Hat's claim not irrefutable? Don't blame him for the fact that you're too lazy to look at the fella's posts to verify Hat's claim.
Exposed the sad troll for what he is haven't I, this whole thread shows how desperate he is for attention when you read it back, repeatedly trying to get me to respond to him to the extent of spending hours collecting my previous posts, absolutely pathetic. Up the Tigers, lets get behind Brucey and all the lads
What made me start this thread is the pure vitriol directed at the manager for no real reason apart from some loser on the internet venting his inadequacies
By the way I didn't read the thread back, just got the expected gist of it from the last few comments, don't feed the trolls
You couldn't make it up. Keep digging Mr. Lahey. Lots of lovely vitriolic abuse directed at me in that lot. Fact is, you fly off the handle and dish out abuse at people as frequently as anyone on this board, so for you to start this thread and then return with that dollop of rubbish says a lot about you. Yes you certainly have exposed the troll for what he is, yourself that would be funnily enough. Have a **** day
That's a total non-sequitur, in relation to my comment to Fez. The discussion has moved miles on from your original post.
It's quite simple really, Tuckin. Hat's posts are simply what I said, random abusive posts with no apparent direction or target. How does me not being arsed to read back the dross this about make me lazy; perhaps the poster making the claim should make it clear? I read back and it is clear that Mr Lahey posts regularly about football, team and general O/T issues, he states his opinion; we can chose whether to agree or not. The posts that are the subject of Hat's posts (the copied ones of Mr Lahey) are clearly an on-going quarrel/dislike between them, although, as I said, Mr Lahey made it very clear who he posting at - they had direction - if he is to be chastised for that by those doing it then I call Pot, Kettle, Black! I think his defence of the manager and the personal stuff is a bit narrower than is being portrayed in this thread, as we are all anonymous, supposedly. He has a point. Ben's post was irrefutable because he made everything available to back-up his comments within the post he used to make them. Uh, and Ben's was a list of comments (I believe it even contained reference to the original posts, where a poster clearly contradicted himself, time and again. Mr Lahey is consistent, he doesn't like Hattie, his posting style or his latest polls and subject matter. Did he read it back or didn't he, or is that the true non-sequitur? or perhaps it's just ironic that Hattie felt the need to do this for the public good. meant to include these, as I am not defending anyone, but they do show a normal tit-for-tat of these boards - folk could respond if they wished as they were named - Hatties were not.
