i thought it would be obvious that the 'ideot' is entirely tongue-in-cheek (that's why i'v

e spelt it that way)

so yes, i got that wrong, it wasn't obvious that it was just a throwaway comment with no malice attached - so i'm sorry that it wasn't taken the way it was intended and that you were upset by it

now the reason why i wouldn't accept your explanation of why you couldn't be arsed to find proof is because you still seemed to think i'd slagged him off, if i'd accepted your explanation i would have also been confirming to you that i had slagged him off - which i haven't

i also explained why i made the damaged goods remark, both yesterday when you first brought it up again, and today in this very thread - i asked you for the linkage to it yesterday as i wanted the context to which i referred to him as damaged goods, which bit of this are you not understanding?

and as for this:

Which is why, when I say "If I get proof will it do me any good", you can enjoy in future going "well you'll just have to accept that you made it all up pantypoos"

well get the f**king proof and nobody can accuse you of making s**t up!

Posted By: Ralf Scrampton, Mar 20, 16:45:10