Bolton Wanderers Football Club Fan Forum for all BWFC Supporters.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Bolton Nuts » BWFC » Wandering Minds » Prince Andrew

Prince Andrew

+8
Norpig
Ten Bobsworth
wanderlust
karlypants
boltonbonce
okocha
Hip Priest
Sluffy
12 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3

Go down  Message [Page 3 of 3]

41Prince Andrew - Page 3 Empty Re: Prince Andrew Thu Feb 17 2022, 17:19

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

wanderlust wrote:
Sluffy wrote:

Eh???

The article doesn't say anything at all like that???

Have you actually read it?
Yes. Have you?

Pretty sure the headline says
Prince Andrew ‘agrees to never repeat denial he raped Virginia Giuffre’
Very Happy

Yes I have and yes it does - but it certainly isn't what the article actually explained the position to be was it?

"However, the stipulation is only thought to remain in place until after the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee celebrations, meaning Ms Giuffre may be free to break her silence in a matter of months.

A friend of the Duke told the newspaper: ‘If you’re going to go for legal resolution at those sorts of prices then you want silence – but what we’ve got is silence for the Platinum Jubilee".


So you've either not read the article as I suspected, or you've clearly not understood it.

So which one is it?

42Prince Andrew - Page 3 Empty Re: Prince Andrew Thu Feb 17 2022, 17:36

karlypants

karlypants
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

It's called clickbait!

43Prince Andrew - Page 3 Empty Re: Prince Andrew Thu Feb 17 2022, 17:39

Whitesince63


Andy Walker
Andy Walker

Not wishing to in any way overlook what Andrew and Maxwell have done but how come it’s only two Brits who’ve been chased and harried on this? We know numerous US businessmen, politicians and even ex presidents, made extensive trips on the Lolita Express, so how come they’ve not been pursued? Have these two been the fall guys whilst the yanks own get off Scot free, or are they next?

44Prince Andrew - Page 3 Empty Re: Prince Andrew Thu Feb 17 2022, 17:41

karlypants

karlypants
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

I'm sure this isn't the end of it all and she will be out to get more perhaps? but you seem to have forgotten the main man Jeffrey Epstein who killed himself in jail.

45Prince Andrew - Page 3 Empty Re: Prince Andrew Thu Feb 17 2022, 17:45

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

karlypants wrote:It's called clickbait!

It is Karly and only mugs believe what the headline is without even bothering to read the article at all.

The same mugs who also believe what they read on social media to be the truth without bothering to check out the facts.

46Prince Andrew - Page 3 Empty Re: Prince Andrew Thu Feb 17 2022, 17:58

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

Whitesince63 wrote:Not wishing to in any way overlook what Andrew and Maxwell have done but how come it’s only two Brits who’ve been chased and harried on this? We know numerous US businessmen, politicians and even ex presidents, made extensive trips on the Lolita Express, so how come they’ve not been pursued? Have these two been the fall guys whilst the yanks own get off Scot free, or are they next?

I would imagine it all depends on what sort of proof she / the other young girls have and how they use it.

It could be that many 'rich and powerful' men have already settled on the quiet - Epstein settled with this woman a few years back for instance hence why there was so much of an argument as to whether those terms included the now disgraced Andrew from Windsor or not.

I simply don't understand it - these people have everything they could possibly want and they use it to get sex off seventeen year olds - they could buy as many eighteen year old hookers as they want legally!?!

Why risk everything just for a quick shag?

47Prince Andrew - Page 3 Empty Re: Prince Andrew Fri Feb 18 2022, 00:08

wanderlust

wanderlust
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Sluffy wrote:

Yes I have and yes it does - but it certainly isn't what the article actually explained the position to be was it?

"However, the stipulation is only thought to remain in place until after the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee celebrations, meaning Ms Giuffre may be free to break her silence in a matter of months.

A friend of the Duke told the newspaper: ‘If you’re going to go for legal resolution at those sorts of prices then you want silence – but what we’ve got is silence for the Platinum Jubilee".


So you've either not read the article as I suspected, or you've clearly not understood it.

So which one is it?
Neither - I only flagged it up so that everyone could make their own minds about it - ideally without trying to interpret what I think  in order to score points.
As it happens, I'm with KP on this i.e. clickbait but I actually would like to know what was actually agreed as the headline part suggests something unusual - which as I mentioned is new on me. Maybe we should just wait until somebody who actually knows provides the answer?

48Prince Andrew - Page 3 Empty Re: Prince Andrew Fri Feb 18 2022, 00:29

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

wanderlust wrote:
Sluffy wrote:

Yes I have and yes it does - but it certainly isn't what the article actually explained the position to be was it?

"However, the stipulation is only thought to remain in place until after the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee celebrations, meaning Ms Giuffre may be free to break her silence in a matter of months.

A friend of the Duke told the newspaper: ‘If you’re going to go for legal resolution at those sorts of prices then you want silence – but what we’ve got is silence for the Platinum Jubilee".


So you've either not read the article as I suspected, or you've clearly not understood it.

So which one is it?
Neither - I only flagged it up so that everyone could make their own minds about it - ideally without trying to interpret what I think  in order to score points.
As it happens, I'm with KP on this i.e. clickbait but I actually would like to know what was actually agreed as the headline part suggests something unusual - which as I mentioned is new on me. Maybe we should just wait until somebody who actually knows provides the answer?

Eh???

I don't have to interpret what you think - you wrote it down for us all to read ffs, or have you forgotten that?

Maybe if you'd bothered to read your own link before posting it you might have realised the headline didn't match the actual story wouldn't you!

Maybe then you would have bothered posting it up and waited yourself until a journalist who did know what was actually going on wrote about it.

What is it that is wrong with you, you've clearly not read the article initially, then lied to say you had and now you're telling us you hadn't read it after all because you now know it to be clickbait???

If you knew it to be clickbait and a story that ran completely contrary to its own headline and one you now yourself admit doesn't know what it is talking about, then why did you post it up, link to it and rabbit on about your thoughts just based on the headline you'd read???

..dunno..

49Prince Andrew - Page 3 Empty Re: Prince Andrew Fri Feb 18 2022, 01:02

finlaymcdanger

finlaymcdanger
El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf

Why so toxic here?

50Prince Andrew - Page 3 Empty Re: Prince Andrew Fri Feb 18 2022, 01:08

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

finlaymcdanger wrote:Why so toxic here?

Why tell lies?

..dunno..

51Prince Andrew - Page 3 Empty Re: Prince Andrew Fri Feb 18 2022, 12:18

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Surprised

52Prince Andrew - Page 3 Empty Re: Prince Andrew Fri Feb 18 2022, 12:32

wanderlust

wanderlust
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Sluffy wrote:

Why tell lies?

..dunno..
Don't start your nonsense again.

I clearly said "this seems strange to me" - at no point did I say "this is what I believe" so calling me a liar is bang out of order.

Worse than that you then claimed that I said I believed what the article said - even though the article presents two contradictory perspectives so that would be impossible anyway - thereby exposing yourself either as a liar or incapable of rational logic.

Just stop shit-stirring. If you think it makes you look clever, it doesn't.
Your wumming and stalking is winding everyone up and you're killing the site.

53Prince Andrew - Page 3 Empty Re: Prince Andrew Fri Feb 18 2022, 12:59

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

wanderlust wrote:
Sluffy wrote:

Why tell lies?

..dunno..
Don't start your nonsense again.

I clearly said "this seems strange to me" - at no point did I say "this is what I believe" so calling me a liar is bang out of order.

Worse than that you then claimed that I said I believed what the article said - even though the article presents two contradictory perspectives so that would be impossible anyway - thereby exposing yourself either as a liar or incapable of rational logic.

Just stop shit-stirring. If you think it makes you look clever, it doesn't.
Your wumming and stalking is winding everyone up and you're killing the site.

I never claimed you believed anything!!!!

Read what I've posted, nothing there about me claiming you believed anything at all - so stop making up stuff to dig yourself out of the hole you've put yourself in.

I asked you directly if you had read the article before you posted it - you said you had - it's clear to all now that you hadn't.

I'm not wumming, stalking or trolling you (or anyone else for that matter).

You're the one who posted a link up, posted your opinions about it and obviously became embarrassed about doing so when I pointed out the article didn't in fact go on to say what the headline had claimed.

There could only be two reasons why you would post up your initial thoughts and opinions based totally and unquestionably on a clearly misleading headline and that was because you didn't bother reading the article itself or that you read it and didn't understand it.

You said it was neither.

I don't believe that to be truthful and I suspect no one else believes you were telling the truth either.

54Prince Andrew - Page 3 Empty Re: Prince Andrew Fri Feb 18 2022, 14:27

wanderlust

wanderlust
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Sluffy wrote:

I never claimed you believed anything!!!!

Read what I've posted, nothing there about me claiming you believed anything at all - so stop making up stuff to dig yourself out of the hole you've put yourself in.

I asked you directly if you had read the article before you posted it - you said you had - it's clear to all now that you hadn't.

I'm not wumming, stalking or trolling you (or anyone else for that matter).

You're the one who posted a link up, posted your opinions about it and obviously became embarrassed about doing so when I pointed out the article didn't in fact go on to say what the headline had claimed.

There could only be two reasons why you would post up your initial thoughts and opinions based totally and unquestionably on a clearly misleading headline and that was because you didn't bother reading the article itself or that you read it and didn't understand it.

You said it was neither.

I don't believe that to be truthful and I suspect no one else believes you were telling the truth either.
:suicide:

55Prince Andrew - Page 3 Empty Re: Prince Andrew Fri Feb 18 2022, 14:46

karlypants

karlypants
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Sluffy wrote:
wanderlust wrote:
Sluffy wrote:

Why tell lies?

..dunno..
Don't start your nonsense again.

I clearly said "this seems strange to me" - at no point did I say "this is what I believe" so calling me a liar is bang out of order.

Worse than that you then claimed that I said I believed what the article said - even though the article presents two contradictory perspectives so that would be impossible anyway - thereby exposing yourself either as a liar or incapable of rational logic.

Just stop shit-stirring. If you think it makes you look clever, it doesn't.
Your wumming and stalking is winding everyone up and you're killing the site.

I never claimed you believed anything!!!!

Read what I've posted, nothing there about me claiming you believed anything at all - so stop making up stuff to dig yourself out of the hole you've put yourself in.

I asked you directly if you had read the article before you posted it - you said you had - it's clear to all now that you hadn't.

I'm not wumming, stalking or trolling you (or anyone else for that matter).

You're the one who posted a link up, posted your opinions about it and obviously became embarrassed about doing so when I pointed out the article didn't in fact go on to say what the headline had claimed.

There could only be two reasons why you would post up your initial thoughts and opinions based totally and unquestionably on a clearly misleading headline and that was because you didn't bother reading the article itself or that you read it and didn't understand it.

You said it was neither.

I don't believe that to be truthful and I suspect no one else believes you were telling the truth either.

You say you don't like the way the atmosphere was on here. We have had around week that has been enjoyable on here and it started to feel like a cloud had lifted yet the first opportunity you get you carry on your vendetta and have a pop at Wanderlust.

Is this the reason why you got potted on Burnden Aces for being obnoxios and having vendetta's on there all the time?

If you don't like it here anymore then why do you continue?

56Prince Andrew - Page 3 Empty Re: Prince Andrew Fri Feb 18 2022, 15:25

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

karlypants wrote:You say you don't like the way the atmosphere was on here. We have had around week that has been enjoyable on here and it started to feel like a cloud had lifted yet the first opportunity you get you carry on your vendetta and have a pop at Wanderlust.

Is this the reason why you got potted on Burnden Aces for being obnoxios and having vendetta's on there all the time?

If you don't like it here anymore then why do you continue?

Bit of a strange post if you don't mind me saying so?

If I was so apparently obnoxious on Burnden Aces then why did Nat and RT want me to create a new forum (which became Nuts) with them and Biggie, Keegan and basically 90% of those on BA to jump ship to come on here?

As for having a 'vendetta' well that's a laugh, it's just the internet and I don't take it seriously.  Up to you if you believe that though.

And as for the 'first opportunity' are you being serious?

Wanderlust post a link and stated his views - fair enough, it was interesting enough for me to want to have a look at the article.

Ok so far?

When I read the article it clearly wasn't anything to do with What Wanderlust had said???

All I did was to point that out - this is what I posted, is it really obnoxious of me, do I look as though I'm pursuing some sort of a vendetta??

Sluffy wrote:
Eh???

The article doesn't say anything at all like that???

Have you actually read it?

What it actually says is that there appears to be a gagging order in force until the end of the Platinum jubilee that prevents the woman saying he raped her and the bloke saying he's never met her.

The order would seem to apply to the other way around too - hence he can't deny he raped her and she can't claim she met him.

Seems they can say whatever they want after the jubilee.

Also it seems that the settlement was he pays her £10m and his mum donates £2m from her private wealth to the woman's charity in her sons name.

No public monies involved.

This my reply back to Wanderlust following his reply - is this obnoxious of me, does it show I'm in vendetta mode?

Sluffy wrote:
wanderlust wrote:Yes. Have you?

Pretty sure the headline says
Prince Andrew ‘agrees to never repeat denial he raped Virginia Giuffre’
Very Happy

Yes I have and yes it does - but it certainly isn't what the article actually explained the position to be was it?

"However, the stipulation is only thought to remain in place until after the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee celebrations, meaning Ms Giuffre may be free to break her silence in a matter of months.

A friend of the Duke told the newspaper: ‘If you’re going to go for legal resolution at those sorts of prices then you want silence – but what we’ve got is silence for the Platinum Jubilee".


So you've either not read the article as I suspected, or you've clearly not understood it.

So which one is it?

Again this my reply back to Wanderlust's response - where's the obnoxiousness from me?  How am I seemingly carrying out some vendetta???

Am I not just simply stating the truth, making fair comment?

Sluffy wrote:
wanderlust wrote:Neither - I only flagged it up so that everyone could make their own minds about it - ideally without trying to interpret what I think  in order to score points.
As it happens, I'm with KP on this i.e. clickbait but I actually would like to know what was actually agreed as the headline part suggests something unusual - which as I mentioned is new on me. Maybe we should just wait until somebody who actually knows provides the answer?

Eh???

I don't have to interpret what you think - you wrote it down for us all to read ffs, or have you forgotten that?

Maybe if you'd bothered to read your own link before posting it you might have realised the headline didn't match the actual story wouldn't you!

Maybe then you would have bothered posting it up and waited yourself until a journalist who did know what was actually going on wrote about it.

What is it that is wrong with you, you've clearly not read the article initially, then lied to say you had and now you're telling us you hadn't read it after all because you now know it to be clickbait???

If you knew it to be clickbait and a story that ran completely contrary to its own headline and one you now yourself admit doesn't know what it is talking about, then why did you post it up, link to it and rabbit on about your thoughts just based on the headline you'd read???

..dunno..

Then today we get this from Wanderlust and my reply.

I've not said anything about what he believes - why his he making that up?

He tells me based on this figment of his imagination that I'm a liar, incapable of rational logic, a shit stirrer, attempting to make myself look clever, wumming, stalking and killing the site!!!

I though I was extremely restraint in my reply bearing all that in mind.

Sluffy wrote:
wanderlust wrote:
Sluffy wrote:

Why tell lies?

..dunno..
Don't start your nonsense again.

I clearly said "this seems strange to me" - at no point did I say "this is what I believe" so calling me a liar is bang out of order.

Worse than that you then claimed that I said I believed what the article said - even though the article presents two contradictory perspectives so that would be impossible anyway - thereby exposing yourself either as a liar or incapable of rational logic.

Just stop shit-stirring. If you think it makes you look clever, it doesn't.
Your wumming and stalking is winding everyone up and you're killing the site.

I never claimed you believed anything!!!!

Read what I've posted, nothing there about me claiming you believed anything at all - so stop making up stuff to dig yourself out of the hole you've put yourself in.

I asked you directly if you had read the article before you posted it - you said you had - it's clear to all now that you hadn't.

I'm not wumming, stalking or trolling you (or anyone else for that matter).

You're the one who posted a link up, posted your opinions about it and obviously became embarrassed about doing so when I pointed out the article didn't in fact go on to say what the headline had claimed.

There could only be two reasons why you would post up your initial thoughts and opinions based totally and unquestionably on a clearly misleading headline and that was because you didn't bother reading the article itself or that you read it and didn't understand it.

You said it was neither.

I don't believe that to be truthful and I suspect no one else believes you were telling the truth either.

I fail to see where you perceive me to have been obnoxious in any way, shape or form and mystified why you think what I've posted constitute to me in some way holding a vendetta?

57Prince Andrew - Page 3 Empty Re: Prince Andrew Fri Feb 18 2022, 15:34

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Nuts on tour. Razz

58Prince Andrew - Page 3 Empty Re: Prince Andrew Fri Feb 18 2022, 16:00

okocha

okocha
El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf

Even if you can't, unfortunately, block certain posters, it's not that hard to simply ignore their nonsense or the tedious lengths they go to in order to try and pompously justify their existence on here.

Don't let curiosity get the better of you in the forlorn hope that they might have reformed.

Just pass on immediately to the messages that you feel will be worthwhile....and relax.....ahhhh! Smile

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 3 of 3]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum