Aski, I had every right to call him a liar. As you're clearly familiar with Glory's posting style, you'll no doubt be aware that he is a pedant when it comes to detail, especially when it suits his agenda. So he should not be a stranger a pedantic statement in return, surely? In the thread he doesn't say that you've stopped posting - he says that you had gone, which is a much more dramatic & serious implication. You hadn't. Splitting hairs, yes, but that it bread & butter to Glory. You might have stopped posting, but you hadn't gone - and you coming on to post that couldn't be better proof that I was correct - you hadn't gone! I could have kissed you for timeously proving me right! (Joking, btw!). Have a look at post #41 on the thread, where Glory replied to Leeds60 ... https://www.not606.com/threads/the-breakfast-debate.355916/page-3 The pertinent sentence: " aski going was too much of a price for the forum to pay for your return." I responded in post #73: "Another lie. Aski didn't go. Do you ever check your facts?" And then, as mentioned earlier, you popped up in post #82: "Whilst I continue to read the forum I no longer log in and post for the very reason mentioned by Glory and have only logged in to clarify that I refuse to post on the forum due to my own personal opinion of Leeds 60. hope that makes it clear for everyone." Glory then jumped in on the following post: "Wj I await your apology. As you have imo instigated mike to take the approach he has you owe him an apology too. I won’t hold my breath you arnt man enough!" This was another load of bollix. If he'd taken the time to ask Leeds60, he would have discovered that I was advocating zero engagement with Glory. Quite the opposite. But again, why should Glory let facts get in the way of a good accusation? One post more that I should replicate is #99, the one where I think you've mis-remembered or misinterpreted what you think I said about you. If it's another one, please replicate it & I'll be happy to apologise if I've been out of order. If it's this one, I was literally playing a numbers game, saying by implication that your postings were actually above average over the previous month since L60 had returned: 236/60 months = 4 posts per month. 7 is a lot more. Like I said, hardly being in exile. It was not casting aspersions on you, and not an attempt to upset you. I most certainly did not say that you were no loss, and in actual fact, I recall posting a very complementary note asking you to reconsider leaving, as I like the content of your posts. I'll leave it here & hope I've given you good reason to have a reconsider. Cheers, Neil. "No apology from me. Aski's post actually underlines that what I said was true. He hasn't gone, has he? He's also posted several times since Leeds60 returned - 7 times alone last month. For a man that's only posted 236 times in 5 years before today, that's not exactly exile, is it? Whilst I've read Askis' post, it becomes clear that his post-Mike postings appear to have overlooked his previously stated intent. I have not instigated anything at all with Mike. Yet another accusation from you with no evidence - aka more lies. If anything, I have tried to broker peace, but then you've not spoken to Mike or I about it, have you? Why let facts get in the way of your bilious and repugnant lies? Man enough? You don't know the meaning of the word. Clearly. What was your nickname in the Service Crew? Safe Distance Steve, was it?"
Can either one of you @Whitejock or @chippy / glory set a pm up involving you both and all the Leeds mods with a view of escalation if either party deems it necessary and we can thrash this out? I don't expect a response from the others this time of night/morning so maybe in the afternoon.
I'll send you a pm tomorrow WJ, as I'm fed up of all the public bickering on the forum these days. I will however apologise for involving myself in this thread
