S Roberts 07/07/2008 13:03:52 ![]() |
All right, Ewan > All right, Ewan
THANK you, Robin! I thought I was a lone voice. |
S Roberts 07/07/2008 12:35:48 ![]() |
All right, Ewan > All right, Ewan
'There will be no personal insults slung around on here or bans will have to be put in place'. Please review member posts in line with this comment. You can start with 'Jon even after all this time you never cease to amaze me with your inability to read somone elses post and completely twist is's meaning to suit your own warped view of the world'; Ah "two inadequates congratulating each other doesn't stop them being inadequate but does demonstartes the depth of their inadequecy."; ' If Jon didn't set himself up with so many silly irrelevent and off topic posts whinging about how hard done by he is and how everyone over a year on the site are control freaks and don't like managers then perhaps poeople wouldn't be tempted to take a pop at him.'; 'Jon go look up pathetic or join in the discussion on the topic not the definition of specific words'; 'Jon we know you have a dictionary and presumably someone to read it for you so look up important to tenants.; 'Chris you are such an insignificant little man'; 'Jon you must have wet dreams about Bob as you keep bringing his name into posts.'...need I go on? |
S Roberts 07/07/2008 11:26:59 ![]() |
Beer tie not to blame for struggling pubs > Beer tie not to blame for struggling pubs
I suggest you learn to read, Mr Stenhouse. Mr Nason is an habitual forum nuisance who twists my words yet cannot provide a single instance where any post of mine here relates to him in any way, save to his own paranoia. If you think I will permit him to falsify my statements you are much mistaken. As to your petty comment at the end of your post, nice to see you leading by example. People in glasshouses & all that. |
S Roberts 07/07/2008 09:18:04 ![]() |
Some interesting reading.. > Some interesting reading..
Under review |
S Roberts 07/07/2008 08:06:34 ![]() |
Some interesting reading.. > Some interesting reading..
Excuse me but I associate those qualities with another person here entirely. The fact that he pursues any post of mine with the object of getting me banned is proof enough. I don't think I bear responsibility for the static on this site; I've read posts that FAR predate my arrival & this person was equally obnoxious then; he quarrels with everyone in order to ruin topics. I'm wondering why, with such a history, he is still welcome on this board but I've formed my own view of that. Ban one, ban all. |
S Roberts 07/07/2008 07:59:24 ![]() |
These Forums. Fao Ewan. > These Forums. Fao Ewan.
Well, it's VERY clear that my account is being deliberately disabled so I can't post & without the courtesy of any explanation. It's becoming equally clear that anyone who disagrees with a certain person here gets this treatment. I'm making this public because I dislike cowardly attempts to prevent me from free speech. If ANYONE here can substantiate the resident nuisance's allegations that I have referred to him personally in any of my statements on this board regarding consultants, let them do right here, in the open. As no such statements exist, they'll be a long time looking. I do not know this individual & if he is stung by my comments, that's really not my problem. |
S Roberts 07/07/2008 07:58:53 ![]() |
Ban hits pub operators: half see profits dip 6%+ > Ban hits pub operators: half see profits dip 6%+
I'm referring, Michael, to the fact that you're presenting half of an argument and ignoring the other half; the method by which you do so is irrelevant & I will NOT allow Mr Nason to twist my words as is his usual habit, in order to derail threads. He is IGNORED by myself & others for exactly that reason. Are you saying, Michael, that smokers are the only trade welcome in a pub? If so, what percentage of smokers represent the total clientele then, to cause significant negative impact on profits? |