Mark H muttered:- > You misread the question, and thereby the whole point of the > question(s). > > I was asking Rick if he knew. "Did YOU know..", Although it could have > equally applied to you. The point being he (and you) did not > include such > information in your regular list postings. >
I am obviously still missing the point - are you saying that I should repeat anything positive I read on the list about Bates in EVERY post I make, some posts I make or just once? If so why? > In other words you (Rick and yourself), in my opinion, were > not offering > balanced information (not that you had to). If I didn't have to then why should I? Do you add anti bates information to your posts 'just to balance things up'? > > In other words it wasn't a simple ongoing news/information > service to the > list (not that it had to be). I aren't and never have considered myself a news/information service - is that how you see me? If so why? > > In other words there was a purpose/backdrop/undercurrent, > other than to > simply inform us 'normal' listers of what was going on (not that there > shouldn't have been). Please define a 'normal' lister and then please advise me why I'm not, in your opinion, 'normal'. > > Which is what fucked me off at the time. Especially as in > the beginning > such information, which I called propaganda, was being posted > to the list > under a pseudonym. I have NEVER posted under a pseudonym - my posts are traceable back over 7 years. I expect you to apologise for inferring otherwise. > > Apparently Bates is a cnut for spin, and you guys perhaps > thought you were > redressing the balance? But Bates does not use our list to > spin, and he > doesn't pretend to be 'one of us'. Are you accusing me of spinning something? To what ends? Is your ulterior motive to discredit me? To what ends? What largess have you been promised if you succeed and why has it been thought necessary? > > Rick has subsequently explained most of the whys and > wherefores, and stated > his own opinions, as have you, but I'm still not quite sure > why you think > some of us were/are wrong to question you - as if by doing so > we are also > 'the enemy'. Why do you seem to think I am the 'enemy' to question Bates? > > > > > How much is Bates paying you and is it worth it? > > > > And you have there clearly demonstrated what I just said. > Largess is the only explanation I can envisage for your perpetual hounding of anything I post. Prove me wrong and I will apologise. > > You shouldn't post potentially litigious information to the > list then should > you. Not actually thinking about myself - more your goading of Rick to say if he thought KPMG had acted improperly or to divulge information he quite obviously is not in a position to divulge. > Albeit without the balls to actually come out and say > it and you have > to allude to this or allude to that. I never allude to anything - I state my opinion - you deny my right to and yet..... > Everyone is entitled to > their opinion, As long as it matches the opinion of you and your mate Ken? > and there is freedom of speech. All you need to do is state > something is > your opinion and that should be the end of it. It's when you > attempt to > dress it up as a fact you have the problem. Mark, it is you that uses the term 'fact is' inperpetuem. I'm can't recall the last time I claimed that anything I wrote was a fact, that wasn't. I give my opinion and my reading of the situation - unfortunately I get lambasted by you if I don't say 'all is well with Leeds United and in 3 years we'll be back in the premiership' Paul _______________________________________________ the Leeds List is an unmoderated mailing list and the list administrators accept no liability for the personal views and opinions of contributors. Leedslist mailing list [email protected] http://list.zetnet.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist Join The Leeds United Supporters Trust at www.lufctrust.org
