Ok forget what I said earlier:
Synbad wrote:
The problem with you Jim is you're out there sprooking this board at every corner and defending their mediocrity.
Categorically untrue, and anyone reading this diatribe you pretend is an actual discourse or conversation can see that.
Quote:
It's quite unnerving to think this board has its admirers. I would classify your behaviour as quite amarous of what's going on.
Categorically untrue.
Quote:
You might see me as hostile.
I see you behaving like a buffoon and failing to provide anything constructive when asked a question or offered a platform.
Quote:
The truth might be somewhere in the middle but there is no doubt more people see it like me and very few people see it like you.
Given that you're not even paying attention to half of what I'm putting up here, I very much doubt you know or have anything of the sort.
Quote:
So I wouldn't classify myself as unique in my stance but I'd probably classify your continuous and perpetual fervor and zeal in your defence of what's going in as quite perplexing given the circumstances....
You are nothing if not unique, because only you would equate my behaviour as fervorous and yours as calm and contemplative.
Quote:
And yes we "must trust somebody sometime" that's yet another of a whole bunch of perplexing arguments you give.
Took you two days to address a simple point, and you've not even made headway into an answer.
Quote:
Which raises suspicious and eyebrows on what you're contributing here and for whom.
It's natural to look at you with great suspicion
I'm truth-seeking; you're do-nothing so long as this is your entire spiel.
Do not include me in future discussions regarding these issues because your accusations have legitimately crossed to libellous. I'd suggest writing a retraction.