Fan ejected at back of east stand ??

[DRFC]

Look! An unfounded accusation from someone who should know better given his legal issues in the past. Need to watch those old fingers Bob, they'll get you in trouble again. You sharp deleted that post about Oyston the other day, I thought you might have been slowly learning your lesson but it's obviously a very slow process.

[RedJ]

Anyone here like oysters? f**king vile they are.

[wilts rover]

There are some very low individuals about if they're prepared to lie to the club about a fellow fan just to settle a score over an internet forum.

I absolutely abhor liars.

Posted by: DRFC
« on: December 11, 2015, 09:41:49 PM »
Are you drinking tonight, Alick? I've no issue with the club other than it's completely unjustified removal of Martin......

I'm trying to provoke only debate...

I've no grievance with the club.....

Posted by: DRFC
« on: December 11, 2015, 08:59:46 PM »
If the club gave that persons details to Martin (rather than just telling him X number of emails pro, Y number anti Martin) then that's a fairly serious breach of trust by the club....

I'm concerned that, potentially, the club could be releasing people's info to a third party

Is it just me, or is the assertion in post No1, made to look contradictory by posts Nos 2 and 3?

As I said in a previous comment about this poster, his/her interaction with other forum posters, and perceived prior knowledge of them, would lead a suspicious person to the conclusion that this is not the first time this person has been a member of this forum.

Which, if true, would mean they seemingly attempting to cause arguments around holding others to account for breaking rules - whilst breaking them him/herself.

[DRFC]

Good job you're not a suspicious person though, eh?

[Yorkiered]

What I really find hilarious is two of the most argumentative, shit s
tirring posters on here calling DRFC.
You couldn't make it up.

[IDM]

Without lifting all the quotes, DRFC, you clearly implied that club may have given Martin personal information on 3rd parties - in a way that I interpreted that you believed this to be the case.  Then you changed your tack to have a go at what folks may have said either positively or negatively - neither of which you would have known directly unless you were involved with the process.

Martin since clarified that no 3rd party information was disclosed to him, so your first hypothesis was wrong.

Now, without descending into abuse, why are you getting so involved in this?  There's no wonder some posters may think you have an agenda - whether you do or not!

Thank f**k there is a football match today!!!

[Forum Admin]

forum mods haven't had to intefere much these last few months; we'd like it to stay that way.
pack it in with the name calling please - if anyone has a problem with another user either PM them directly or PM the Forum Admin.