British Broadcorping Castration

boltonbonce wrote:Bob, I'd be interested to know which laws Vince has broken. I can only assume the cops are moving in as we speak.

Sluffy wrote:
To be fair it didn't stop nearly everyone on here believing Ken Anderson was breaking the laws whilst at Bolton and me having to endure the best part of three years with all of you having a bee in your bonnet and going on about him incessantly on a daily basis.  I don't believe the cops have got to his door yet over a year later have they?

Sluffy wrote:

To be fair it didn't stop nearly everyone on here believing Ken Anderson was breaking the laws whilst at Bolton and me having to endure the best part of three years with all of you having a bee in your bonnet and going on about him incessantly on a daily basis.  I don't believe the cops have got to his door yet over a year later have they?

My point being that there's plenty on here who seem to be moaning about something they were doing exactly the same thing themselves on here and not so long ago either!

I've little to no interest in Vince or FGR, it happened and we've moved on from it in my mind but Bob clearly hasn't and neither have the ones on here who believed Anderson was the crook you all thought he was - and in some cases still do!

Seems to me an awful lot of 'pots' calling a 'kettle' here!

So as you know what to expect from Bob then either put him on ignore, avoid his posts or simply don't react to him if you read them.  Either that or prove him wrong in what he says.

Easy.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:

That is completely false, I told you many times on here that I didn't think he was doing anything illegal. You just refused to accept that.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:

Sluffy wrote:
To be fair it didn't stop nearly everyone on here believing Ken Anderson was breaking the laws whilst at Bolton and me having to endure the best part of three years with all of you having a bee in your bonnet and going on about him incessantly on a daily basis.  I don't believe the cops have got to his door yet over a year later have they?

That is completely false, I told you many times on here that I didn't think he was doing anything illegal. You just refused to accept that.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Not bad really but Nuts has a contingent of blockheads who will never understand anything of interest beyond the narrowest of spectrums. They howl in protest but its never been aimed at them. They are a totally lost cause and always will be.

Sluffy wrote:

I wrote "NEARLY everyone", if you (or anyone else) DIDN'T believe he was breaking any laws then that statement doesn't apply to you then does it!

Sluffy wrote:

I wrote "NEARLY everyone", if you (or anyone else) DIDN'T believe he was breaking any laws then that statement doesn't apply to you then does it!

T.R.O.Y. wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

I wrote "NEARLY everyone", if you (or anyone else) DIDN'T believe he was breaking any laws then that statement doesn't apply to you then does it!

Nearly everyone, implies the majority. Which is bollocks, i can't think of any regular posters who pushed that angle. So it's a false statement.

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

To be fair it didn't stop nearly everyone on here believing Ken Anderson was breaking the laws whilst at Bolton and me having to endure the best part of three years with all of you having a bee in your bonnet and going on about him incessantly on a daily basis.  I don't believe the cops have got to his door yet over a year later have they?

My point being that there's plenty on here who seem to be moaning about something they were doing exactly the same thing themselves on here and not so long ago either!

I've little to no interest in Vince or FGR, it happened and we've moved on from it in my mind but Bob clearly hasn't and neither have the ones on here who believed Anderson was the crook you all thought he was - and in some cases still do!

Seems to me an awful lot of 'pots' calling a 'kettle' here!

So as you know what to expect from Bob then either put him on ignore, avoid his posts or simply don't react to him if you read them.  Either that or prove him wrong in what he says.

Easy.

Right reason, wrong interpretation. 
I gave up banging on about Anderson because I agreed that no charges were pressed (which could have been for many reasons of course) but I still believe he is as guilty as sin - just don't have the evidence to back it up yet.
Similarly, Bob seems to believe that Vince is a crook (although I'm not quite sure why he's even bothered as he has f*** all to do with BWFC and thousands of "businessmen" are crooks anyway) but as yet hasn't produced any evidence.
So by your logic, the onus is on Bob to produce the smoking gun or STFU.
And even if he does, I don't think anyone will give a monkey's anyway.

Sluffy wrote:

Err no.

You DID believe he broke the law, you posted so for three years solid - and you even believe he still did but you have no proof of such - even though court representatives have gone through the companies of the accounts and made their official results of what they found to the legal authorities.

So it's exactly the right interpretation, namely that someone's actions (Vince to Bob, Anderson to you) are repugnant to yourself but have not actually broken any law.

My logic also doesn't suggest that Bob "shuts the fuck up" or produce the smoking gone at all - just the exact opposite in fact!  He's free to give his opinion, like you did (constantly) on Anderson - nobody told you to 'shut the fuck up' did they?  Nor is it his job to produce the smoking gun - you never did, did you?  The onus is on the reader to ignore his narrative or disprove it - which I constantly challenged you on but which you always thought you knew better/refused to accept you were wrong about - hence the hole you've dug for yourself over this in those three years.

I do agree however that I don't think many will give a fig over what if anything happens to Vince apart from Bob himself and Vince's nearest and dearest.

Life moves on whether you want it to or not.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

I wrote "NEARLY everyone", if you (or anyone else) DIDN'T believe he was breaking any laws then that statement doesn't apply to you then does it!

Is there really any point in having any kind of discourse with the likes of T.R.O.Y, Sluffy?

Anyway somebody's been telling Zoe Ball that its outrageous that she gets paid more than Gary Lineker and she seems to have agreed. Least that's what the Daily Mirror's saying or summat like it.

You don't suppose its got anything to do with Nuts R number? You know what I mean? Somebody tells one person and they tell another and before you know it there's an epidemic of outrage and it all started here on Nuts!

https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/zoe-ball-to-ask-bbc-22752296

boltonbonce wrote:
Correct. I never liked Anderson, and found his business antics distasteful, and I'm equally dismissive of a rather posturing Vince. However, he's not part of my club. I'm not sure what Bob has against him though.
Rich people always try to avoid tax, in fact they employ people to help them do it, so I'm not sure why he's singling out one man.
I had a lot of sympathy for Vince when he had to fork out all that money to his ex.

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

Err no.

You DID believe he broke the law, you posted so for three years solid - and you even believe he still did but you have no proof of such - even though court representatives have gone through the companies of the accounts and made their official results of what they found to the legal authorities.

So it's exactly the right interpretation, namely that someone's actions (Vince to Bob, Anderson to you) are repugnant to yourself but have not actually broken any law.

My logic also doesn't suggest that Bob "shuts the fuck up" or produce the smoking gone at all - just the exact opposite in fact!  He's free to give his opinion, like you did (constantly) on Anderson - nobody told you to 'shut the fuck up' did they?  Nor is it his job to produce the smoking gun - you never did, did you?  The onus is on the reader to ignore his narrative or disprove it - which I constantly challenged you on but which you always thought you knew better/refused to accept you were wrong about - hence the hole you've dug for yourself over this in those three years.

I do agree however that I don't think many will give a fig over what if anything happens to Vince apart from Bob himself and Vince's nearest and dearest.

Life moves on whether you want it to or not.

Typical. You use the "produce the evidence or STFU" line when it suits you - but not when it doesn't.

Sluffy wrote:

No mate, try to get it in that blocked head of yours that I've never, ever, banned you to shut you up - I've banned you for repeatedly being personally abusive and for your Neanderthal type homophobic comments.

Deflection: I never mentioned banning so WTF has that got to do with what we are discussing?

You've been on here for nearly NINE YEARS and made almost 20,000 posts, so don't come it with the 'I'm a victim' act of yours that I only ban you to shut you up when I don't like what you're saying.

Nobody mentioned being a victim either...

That's just you being in total self denial about yourself and how you act and behave.

"You know what I'm thinking" - again?

T.R.O.Y. wrote:You took worse abuse on the other forum. I think you left here because nobody was listening to you, then things got nasty when the same happened over there.

No place for that mind, I’ll disagree with you until the cows come home but nobody deserves outright abuse.