
personally I think not replying would be the best solution.............but then I have bought several bags of popcorn....so maybe not

Indeed, and the original comment seemed quite innocuous....yet the responses which ensued led directly to this.mick1 wrote:.................bearing in mind this all started over a chip van comment![]()
I'm not having a go at you Mick, so please don't take this personally.mick1 wrote:.................
personally I think not replying would be the best solution.............
Buttered please and plenty of it!Toot-oasc wrote:Salted, Sweet or Buttered???
Not taking it personally so no issues thereToot-oasc wrote:I'm not having a go at you Mick, so please don't take this personally.mick1 wrote:.................
personally I think not replying would be the best solution.............
So by default the accusations of financial impropriety and apparently using my influence inappropriately must be right, (which both are definitely not) and anyone can say what ever they want on a public forum without fear of reply simply because I'm a high profile member of the LCGB and trying to defend myself is unprofessional and looks bad on the club?
Finding yourself the target of being accused repeatedly of unfounded financial impropriety, isn't nice. Especially when it's something voluntary that you do, which I've put the vast majority of my free time into for the past 6-7 years. (Which I fully accept is my choice).
Why? What did they get banned for?eden wrote:Two ILC members got bans last week.
Full bans., not allowed to take part in any lcgb activities.
Out of 5000 members two of them are having a slanging match..........4998 enjoy the LCGB for what it is.Scooterdude wrote:Don't think I'll be joining the LCGB cult any time soon, to much bullshite and playground politics for me.