"Internet Trolls..."

Originally posted by FMF
Will you be willing to go over what you said on that thread?

why do you want an appointment?

-Removed-

yes because i don't really have to go to the hospital, you self assuming pompous windbag. why don't you just stop making assumptions about people. the only thing that's pathetic is your singular belief in your own windbaggery

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
why do you want an appointment?

You won't be able to sidestep the thread's content by claiming that I am accusing you of child abuse or some such. You defended covering it up, and you had your reasons. If I can show you where you did this, are you willing to go through it?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have not defended the covering up of child abuse and i resent you lying assertions that I have. .

But you did, as you well know (that's why you're posting in robbie-is-rattled-mode), and the thread is still available.

Originally posted by FMF
You won't be able to sidestep the thread's content by claiming that I am accusing you of child abuse or some such. You defended covering it up, and you had your reasons. If I can show you where you did this, are you willing to go through it?

this is just further evidence of willingness to make assumptions about people, your question is based on an assumption of guilt, is it not? why would you make an assumption of someone guilt, because you are a self assuming pompous windbag, is that not the case FMF? that is why you have framed your question in such a way as it assumes guilt, not very clever again and further evidence or your proclivity for self assumption,. Thanks for that.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
this is just further evidence of willingness to make assumptions about people, your question is based on an assumption of guilt, is it not? why would you make an assumption of someone guilt, because you are a self assuming pompous windbag, is that not the case FMF? that is why you have framed your question in such a way as it assumes guilt, not very clever again.

There is no "assumption of guilt". There is simply what you wrote on that thread in defence of covering up child sex abuse in your organisation. You were totally open about your defence. Nothing is subject to "assumption". It is all there in black and white.

Originally posted by FMF
There is no "assumption of guilt". There is simply what you wrote on that thread in defence of covering up child sex abuse in your organisation. You were totally open about your defence. Nothing is subject to "assumption". It is all there in black and white.

Its an assumption of guilt on two counts one that there is a cover up and secondly that i am guilty of defending a so called cover up. Its simply more evidence of your self assuming pompous windbaggery.

-Removed-

Read 16 pages of Mr Carrobie and Divegeester whiff-whaff?!? (Ping pong).

Have you been eating lard?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Read 16 pages of Mr Carrobie and Divegeester whiff-whaff?!? (Ping pong).

Have you been eating lard?

Whiff whaff thats funny 😀

-Removed-

Answer the question have you been scoffing lard?

-Removed-

Yes that was funny too.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Its an assumption of guilt on two counts one that there is a cover up and secondly that i am guilty of defending a so called cover up. Its simply more evidence of your self assuming pompous windbaggery.

Your defence of covering up sexual abuse of children is all there in black and white. If I dig out the thread will you go through it and defend what you said on it?