Maldon Shrimper
First XI⭐
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2011
- Messages
- 2,888
Everyone is intitled to there opinion but why now to have a pop at PB.
Now I know your a cabby dad of Jim but if PB takes your advice and goes through the roundabout at the end of Hamstel road ( point 4). Then he will end up in Garons golf club and no where near Sunderland. Still explains why you charge s much.
Posting the directions to Sunderland again doesn't make any point you may have raised (I'm not convinced there were any in the original thread) any more convincing.
It just makes you look extremely infantile.
The A19 is a bad move, as well.
There's major roadworks, there. You'll be better advised taking the B2678 trunk road towards Seaham, turning left at Harry Ramsden's and then right again just past the co-op on the corner of Blyth Road.
It'll cut about 10 minutes off the journey time. Guarantee it.
Thank me later!
Even more serious point of order here.
Please have the common courtesy to read what I said and I quote:-
I have been an active and vocal detractor of Mr Brown since the sad announcement of his appointment. This has included lengthy face to face, telephone and text conversations with the likes of our chairman, Adam Barrett and Mr Browns seafront landlord, to name but a few.
I did not say that he said anything derogatory. In fact he is the polar opposite to myself and seems to believe that our manager is just hunky dory.
So, why was he named in your original post?
I've now added the rest of your sentence, which you didn't include in it's entirety and have now re-quoted above in blue. It clearly refers to your dislike of PB and conversations on this subject with certain "in the know" people and intimates their agreement with your views. It can't suggest anything else, otherwise what's the relevance of naming them and the conversations you have had with them?
Is the suggestion that the Chairman and Adam Barrett are also people who share your views?
Indeed. Exactly the point of my original post on this thread. If none of the three named actually agree with the sentiments, then they shouldn't be named at all. Especially in the same sentence. He would be best removing the names, so we know these are only his views and not shared by them.
Unless they are removed, then the suggestion is that they agree with his comments, by association with the original post, which has no balanced view and states the poster's opinion in no uncertain terms.
So, what's the relevance of these "conversations" then?
Stick with me on this, btw. I'm setting something up here. :winking:
"I have been an active and vocal detractor of Mr Brown since the sad announcement of his appointment. This has included lengthy face to face, telephone and text conversations with the likes of our chairman, Adam Barrett and Mr Browns seafront landlord, to name but a few."
There is no reason to draw the inference you have from those two sentences. In fact just the opposite. If those three people agreed with him there'd have been no need for lengthy conversations !!
There is no evidence to say they disagreed also .There is no relevance to those conversations. It's like saying, "I was only saying to my barber last week...". What he said to anyone is unimportant as it's only his view and there's no evidence that anyone he spoke to agreed with him.
That's a ridicules conclusion. That implies that just because you agree with someone you wouldn't engage in a lengthy conversation?
There is no evidence to say they disagreed also .
Another that has missed my point in reposting. When I posted the second set of route instructions, it was to continue a thread that I had started, but had been arbitrarily closed. Your accusation of infantility does little to suggest that you can make a reasoned reply to my original thoughts.