Lerner/Lambert v Ellis/O'Leary

[Monty]

After the amount of money Lerner has put in, i'd be embarrassed to be hanging signs over the top of the Holte End.

You mean our money, as in don't we owe it him in 'loans' ?

Or will he feck off and not want it all back ?

If it's the latter and he will walk without wanting to recoup it then, and only then will I considered it as his money that's been wasted

So, in this hypothetical scenario for which there isn't just no evidence but which in fact runs contrary to the evidence, you're furious with the owner? I too am livid with him because of the part he'll play in the assassination of President Hillary Clinton. I'll never forgive him for this once it's happened if it happens.

See what I mean.

Well spotted, I have indeed never made a criticism of Randy Lerner in all my 10,000+ posts during his ownership.

This getting the same as the Lambert thread,some of the answers coming back are getting silly,and are trying to get a reaction.
Its a boring way of getting a point across.

BLF, I thought sirlordbaltimore's comment was fairly ridiculous, so in a light-hearted way (I'm sure he's a nice guy and all that) I tried to poke some fun at it. You, in a fairly heroic non-sequitur, took this as an example of how Lerner is untouchable to me, which was, again, fairly ridiculous. If you don't want to get ridiculed, don't say ridiculous things.

[bertlambshank]

After the amount of money Lerner has put in, i'd be embarrassed to be hanging signs over the top of the Holte End.

You mean our money, as in don't we owe it him in 'loans' ?

Or will he feck off and not want it all back ?

If it's the latter and he will walk without wanting to recoup it then, and only then will I considered it as his money that's been wasted

So, in this hypothetical scenario for which there isn't just no evidence but which in fact runs contrary to the evidence, you're furious with the owner? I too am livid with him because of the part he'll play in the assassination of President Hillary Clinton. I'll never forgive him for this once it's happened if it happens.

See what I mean.

Well spotted, I have indeed never made a criticism of Randy Lerner in all my 10,000+ posts during his ownership.

This getting the same as the Lambert thread,some of the answers coming back are getting silly,and are trying to get a reaction.
Its a boring way of getting a point across.

BLF, I thought sirlordbaltimore's comment was fairly ridiculous, so in a light-hearted way (I'm sure he's a nice guy and all that) I tried to poke some fun at it. You, in a fairly heroic non-sequitur, took this as an example of how Lerner is untouchable to me, which was, again, fairly ridiculous. If you don't want to get ridiculed, don't say ridiculous things.

So if somebody hasn't got the same point of view as you they are ridiculous.
Oh and your just not funny.

[Monty]

BLS, sorry, not BLF. And your just unable to spell.

And no, it's not if they don't have the same view as me. I have civil debates on here with Concrete John, Chris Smith, all sorts of people with massively different viewpoints from me but who argue sanely and rationally. If your viewpoint is 'I'm furious because Randy Lerner might do something bad' then you're not being sane or rational.

[bertlambshank]

BLS, sorry, not BLF. And your just unable to spell.

And no, it's not if they don't have the same view as me. I have civil debates on here with Concrete John, Chris Smith, all sorts of people with massively different viewpoints from me but who argue sanely and rationally. If your viewpoint is 'I'm furious because Randy Lerner might do something bad' then you're not being sane or rational.

What on earth are you on about?
I haven't said any of that.

[Monty]

No, SLB said that. You said that my calling his point ridiculous was an example of my never criticising Lerner, part of a wider omerta on criticism of the owner which you appear to believe is going on.

[Toronto Villa]

BLS, sorry, not BLF. And your just unable to spell.

And no, it's not if they don't have the same view as me. I have civil debates on here with Concrete John, Chris Smith, all sorts of people with massively different viewpoints from me but who argue sanely and rationally. If your viewpoint is 'I'm furious because Randy Lerner might do something bad' then you're not being sane or rational.

What on earth are you on about?
I haven't said any of that.

I want to commend you on not having any spelling errors in this post.

[bertlambshank]

No, SLB said that. You said that my calling his point ridiculous was an example of my never criticising Lerner, part of a wider omerta on criticism of the owner which you appear to believe is going on.

Yet again I haven't said that,and thank's for letting me know what I am beliving.Dear me we really do think alot of ourself don't we.

[LeeB]

No, SLB said that. You said that my calling his point ridiculous was an example of my never criticising Lerner, part of a wider omerta on criticism of the owner which you appear to believe is going on.

Yet again I haven't said that,and thank's for letting me know what I am beliving.Dear me we really do think alot of ourself don't we.

I beliving in Castle Bromwich.

[Toronto Villa]

No, SLB said that. You said that my calling his point ridiculous was an example of my never criticising Lerner, part of a wider omerta on criticism of the owner which you appear to believe is going on.

Yet again I haven't said that,and thank's for letting me know what I am beliving.Dear me we really do think alot of ourself don't we.

oh deer

[Monty]

No, SLB said that. You said that my calling his point ridiculous was an example of my never criticising Lerner, part of a wider omerta on criticism of the owner which you appear to believe is going on.

Yet again I haven't said that,and thank's for letting me know what I am beliving.Dear me we really do think alot of ourself don't we.

You only appear to believe that - if you don't believe it, then you can thank your unique relationship to the language for so successfully putting across a point so different to the one which you intended.

And I don't know who else is with you, but if you both have high self-esteem then good for both of you.

[bertlambshank]

No, SLB said that. You said that my calling his point ridiculous was an example of my never criticising Lerner, part of a wider omerta on criticism of the owner which you appear to believe is going on.

Yet again I haven't said that,and thank's for letting me know what I am beliving.Dear me we really do think alot of ourself don't we.

You only appear to believe that - if you don't believe it, then you can thank your unique relationship to the language for so successfully putting across the opposite point to the one which you intended.

And I don't know who else is with you, but if you both have high self-esteem then good for both of you.

Another poor attempt at humour keep trying.

[Monty]

No, SLB said that. You said that my calling his point ridiculous was an example of my never criticising Lerner, part of a wider omerta on criticism of the owner which you appear to believe is going on.

Yet again I haven't said that,and thank's for letting me know what I am beliving.Dear me we really do think alot of ourself don't we.

You only appear to believe that - if you don't believe it, then you can thank your unique relationship to the language for so successfully putting across the opposite point to the one which you intended.

And I don't know who else is with you, but if you both have high self-esteem then good for both of you.

Another poor attempt at humour keep trying.

Another poor attempt at grammar keep trying.

[bertlambshank]

Nice to see the usual suspects are out to play again.

[LeeB]

Nice to see the usual suspects are out to play again.

Is this your catchphrase?

[Toronto Villa]

I'm Keyser Söze