The "Mighty Juggernaut" thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hoddle is a god
  • Start date Start date
  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
I can't see what Pixie is writing, but could someone please ask him for proof of where I agreed not to mention the silly ****er in any posts whilst he put himself on IGNORE in order to dodge his bottling of my long (and still) standing challenge?
 
Hoddle Is A God said:
I can't see what Pixie is writing, but could someone please ask him for proof of where I agreed not to mention the silly ****er in any posts whilst he put himself on IGNORE in order to dodge his bottling of my long (and still) standing challenge?
Click to expand...

gooner4ever said:
neither take part in any thread started by any other person that is in regards to either of the two protagonists.
This includes the use of dummy accounts or secondary accounts or alleged usage of them (for example Cornish Clive, and Saintsfan08)
Click to expand...

HIAG has clearly taken part in these threads by virtue of mentioning me. A welching of monumental proportions.

As for any of his other accounts, I haven't even bothered to check yet, but I'm sure it would up the 'welch' count <laugh>
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Ginger Marks
I think it's time for a new thread where we vote on the forfeit for HIAG.

Maybe Luvgonzo could choose an avatar that HIAG has to carry for a month <whistle>
 
Has Pixie yet shown that I agreed not to mention him whilst he had me on IGNORE (wink wink!)?

It would be an interesting exercise for someone of low intelligence (Bambi or Skiddy, perhaps) to carry out to discover what percentage of Pixie's posts mentioned me or alluded to me, whilst he had me on "ignore." My betting is that it will be close to 98%.
 
Hoddle Is A God said:
Has Pixie yet shown that I agreed not to mention him whilst he had me on IGNORE (wink wink!)?

It would be an interesting exercise for someone of low intelligence (Bambi or Skiddy, perhaps) to carry out to discover what percentage of Pixie's posts mentioned me or alluded to me, whilst he had me on "ignore." My betting is that it will be close to 98%.
Click to expand...

Done. I'm sure @gooner4ever will be able to highlight other areas that you've welched on too.

What you've failed to grasp is that whilst I chose to put you on ignore, I didn't agree not to mention or allude to you. Whereas you did with regard to me and subsequently welched it. The devil is in the detail you see.

What with you being a lawyer, I would have thought you would have checked the fine details :)
 
I can't see what Pixie's writing.

I take it that he's posted a link to a post where I agree to anything?

By the way, has he finally agreed to my open challenge? I'm hoping that his time on "ignore" made him reconsider his previous bottling stance.
 
Hoddle Is A God said:
I can't see what Pixie's writing.

I take it that he's posted a link to a post where I agree to anything?

By the way, has he finally agreed to my open challenge? I'm hoping that his time on "ignore" made him reconsider his previous bottling stance.
Click to expand...

The link is there and it's clear that you can see it along with my posts.

Would you like to apologise for welching on this latest challenge now ?

I can only take your silence as an admission of guilt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Ginger Marks
I see a blank reply, so take it that Pixie has posted to my exact post in which I agree to anything?

Or is he merely going through his usual idiotic act of posting a link to what someone else has written and claiming that I agreed to it? Surely he wouldn't be that moronic?
 
I can see a blank reply.

I do hope that Pixie hasn't linked to my accepting a challenge that he bottled, and which therefore voided that challenge, and attempting to use that as "evidence" that I agreed not to mention him?

Surely, he wouldn't be so stupid as to attempt that?

Firstly, G4E put forward the proposal as a challenge to be accepted by both Pixie and me, but only I was man enough to accept. He bottled it, so the deal was never concluded.

Secondly, there is nothing in that challenge that prevented either of us from mentioning the other. It merely prevented either from mentioning the other on threads that had been started by the respective other, or by others about either of us. So, even if it is possible to unilaterally accept G4E's challenge (which it cannot, since it is predicated on both of us accepting the challenge - and Pixie bottled it big-time), there is nothing in the challenge to support Pixie's argument.

But, I would expect him to know all of this and not attempt to use it was evidence to support his silly argument. He'd have to be a complete muppet to do otherwise.

Perhaps one of you lads can pass this on to him, as I have him on IGNORE.

Cheers, lads.
 
Hoddle Is A God said:
I can see a blank reply.

I do hope that Pixie hasn't linked to my accepting a challenge that he bottled, and which therefore voided that challenge, and attempting to use that as "evidence" that I agreed not to mention him?

Surely, he wouldn't be so stupid as to attempt that?

Firstly, G4E put forward the proposal as a challenge to be accepted by both Pixie and me, but only I was man enough to accept. He bottled it, so the deal was never concluded.

Secondly, there is nothing in that challenge that prevented either of us from mentioning the other. It merely prevented either from mentioning the other on threads that had been started by the respective other, or by others about either of us. So, even if it is possible to unilaterally accept G4E's challenge (which it cannot, since it is predicated on both of us accepting the challenge - and Pixie bottled it big-time), there is nothing in the challenge to support Pixie's argument.

But, I would expect him to know all of this and not attempt to use it was evidence to support his silly argument. He'd have to be a complete muppet to do otherwise.

Perhaps one of you lads can pass this on to him, as I have him on IGNORE.

Cheers, lads.
Click to expand...
...a lot of words there ... think it's a code .... think I've deciphered it ... it really reads :

HIAG is an honourless fool ... with a disturbing obsession for weird films ...


Wow ...damning ... :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: PINKIE
Hoddle Is A God said:
I can see a blank reply.

I do hope that Pixie hasn't linked to my accepting a challenge that he bottled, and which therefore voided that challenge, and attempting to use that as "evidence" that I agreed not to mention him?

Surely, he wouldn't be so stupid as to attempt that?

Firstly, G4E put forward the proposal as a challenge to be accepted by both Pixie and me, but only I was man enough to accept. He bottled it, so the deal was never concluded.

Secondly, there is nothing in that challenge that prevented either of us from mentioning the other. It merely prevented either from mentioning the other on threads that had been started by the respective other, or by others about either of us. So, even if it is possible to unilaterally accept G4E's challenge (which it cannot, since it is predicated on both of us accepting the challenge - and Pixie bottled it big-time), there is nothing in the challenge to support Pixie's argument.

But, I would expect him to know all of this and not attempt to use it was evidence to support his silly argument. He'd have to be a complete muppet to do otherwise.

Perhaps one of you lads can pass this on to him, as I have him on IGNORE.

Cheers, lads.
Click to expand...

[HASHTAG]#rattled[/HASHTAG]

G4E's challenge wasn't a bet that needed both parties to agree to to activate it (like the one you welched on that Luv set) It was simply an invitation for us both which you 'ACCEPTED' and subsequently welched on.

Being a hot shot Lawyer, I thought you would have checked the finer details. :)

I said from the beginning I wouldn't agree to it because I knew you'd welch it and I was proved right.

I knew you'd walk into this particular wum **** up, I've simply laid the trap and waited for you to stumble blindly into it.
 
Last edited:
I can see a blank reply, again.

I take it that Pixie has recanted his silly "bottled G4E's challenge" nonsense and has realised that nothing in what G4E proposed prevented either of us from mentioning the other? I do hope so, because only a psychotic muppet would keep bleating on about it!

No doubt someone will pass that on to him as I have him on IGNORE.

Thanks, lads.
 
Hoddle Is A God said:
I can see a blank reply, again.

I take it that Pixie has recanted his silly "bottled G4E's challenge" nonsense and has realised that nothing what G4E proposed prevented either of us from mentioning the other? I do hope so, because only a psychotic muppet would keep bleating on about it!

No doubt someone will pass that on to him as I have him on IGNORE.

Thanks, lads.
Click to expand...

[HASHTAG]#rattled[/HASHTAG]

G4E even pulled you up on it

gooner4ever said:
I did go through your posts and you keep mentioning Piskie.
Try not typing his name or referring to him in your posts and you will find some inner peace.
Click to expand...

Your continuing ranting won't brush your welching under the carpet mate.

Keep em coming :)
 
Last edited:
Has someone called the cops yet?

I think the segments want to file a complaint.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back