FAO: Caliburn

Cal,

as a poster from here and from when i used to frequent the mad messageboard I always respected your posts, often well thought out and on many times humoruous.

Many times yourself and I have had a lot of good banter.

However I was dissapointed with your post and specifically your statement " I was again taken back by the vicious attitude taken by so many of the posters there towards the trust and, apparently to individuals attached to it and the statement"

Having read the thread on here regarding the trusts statement there are a total of 2 posts which single out an individual out of a total of 28 replys (as i type this) and they will be deleted now. However I would also clarify that not 1 report about the posts has been made to the moderators.

Another statement you made about "us" was " Whilst roaring like blood lusting bulls the other day because trust statements were too gentle and ineffective" This is Totally untrue, there were a number of messages thanking and backing the Trusts earlier statement on this very board.

Please Cal if you are not happy with a post report it to us and we will deal with it. You say we need to stand together as City fans well lets start by not refering to this board as "the other side".

Best Regards,

The Rhooster.

G'day Rhooster,
If I criticise other people for overstepping the mark then I have to toe the line myself. You are quite right. I did go somewhat over the top and I apologise for any exaggeration in my post. As you rightly say. most of the posts were hostile but reasonable. However, an enemy of TLGs who actually named him in his effort to downgrade his (and the Trusts) image aroused both my disgust and my anger.

I believe that it's vitally important that the Trust survives and prosper and that a poster with his own underhanded agenda ought not to be allowed to sling mud at anyone who dares to contradict him.

As you say, most of the posts attacked the ideas and not the personalities which is as it should be. I accept that I have just broken that rule but I'm trying to explain my own rash post which was fuelled by anger at the unjust nonsense instigated by one man that led to others falling into the trap.

Have a Good Day

CAL

Dear Rhooste

Should''nt this have been a PM to Cal?

Rather that let the world and his wfie know about his "indiscretion"


Elwood

Dear Rhooste

Should''nt this have been a PM to Cal?

Rather that let the world and his wfie know about his "indiscretion"


Elwood

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Elwood,
If you could arrange for me to enjoy an 'Indiscretion' at my age I would be extremely grateful.


CAL

Dear Rhooste

Should''nt this have been a PM to Cal?

Rather that let the world and his wfie know about his "indiscretion"


Elwood

No Elwood I dont believe so, myself and Caliburn are mature enough to discuss the matter on the board, being as the subject matter was the messageboards and the users i feel justified in it being in the public domian and as you will have seen Caliburn replied in his usual well mannered impecable way.

Regards,

the Rhooster.

G'day Rhooster,
If I criticise other people for overstepping the mark then I have to toe the line myself. You are quite right. I did go somewhat over the top and I apologise for any exaggeration in my post. As you rightly say. most of the posts were hostile but reasonable. However, an enemy of TLGs who actually named him in his effort to downgrade his (and the Trusts) image aroused both my disgust and my anger.

I believe that it's vitally important that the Trust survives and prosper and that a poster with his own underhanded agenda ought not to be allowed to sling mud at anyone who dares to contradict him.

As you say, most of the posts attacked the ideas and not the personalities which is as it should be. I accept that I have just broken that rule but I'm trying to explain my own rash post which was fuelled by anger at the unjust nonsense instigated by one man that led to others falling into the trap.

Have a Good Day

CAL

Have a good day old bean, I more than most suffer with the old temper tantrums too

Dear Rhooste

Should''nt this have been a PM to Cal?

Rather that let the world and his wfie know about his "indiscretion"


Elwood

No Elwood I dont believe so, myself and Caliburn are mature enough to discuss the matter on the board, being as the subject matter was the messageboards and the users i feel justified in it being in the public domian and as you will have seen Caliburn replied in his usual well mannered impecable way.

Regards,

the Rhooster.

Rhooster


Point taken . I'm sure it won't bother Cal in the slightest so fair enough

Be aware though that Cal's manservant Hartley is another matter and he has been known to employ the services of two large men in dark suits with violin cases where he feels his master has been slighted.


Elwood

Dear Rhooste

Should''nt this have been a PM to Cal?

Rather that let the world and his wfie know about his "indiscretion"


Elwood

No Elwood I dont believe so, myself and Caliburn are mature enough to discuss the matter on the board, being as the subject matter was the messageboards and the users i feel justified in it being in the public domian and as you will have seen Caliburn replied in his usual well mannered impecable way.

Regards,

the Rhooster.

Rhooster


Point taken . I'm sure it won't bother Cal in the slightest so fair enough

Be aware though that Cal's manservant Hartley is another matter and he has been known to employ the services of two large men in dark suits with violin cases where he feels his master has been slighted.


Elwood

I'm one of the men in dark suits.

Personally I believe the Trust has shown the way ahead.

Having recognised our right to march it is only reasonable for us to replicate that and recognise their right to make statements and write letters.

And just to square the circle we can also now recognise Cal's right to get opinion all in a twist and leave it to his menservants to sought it out.......