| Burgess wouldn't have done that. (n/t) 15:33 - Feb 4 with 2540 views | FrimleyBlue |
|  |
| |  |
| Burgess wouldn't have done that. (n/t) on 17:10 - Feb 4 with 440 views | NeedhamChris |
| Burgess wouldn't have done that. (n/t) on 17:09 - Feb 4 by Ryorry |
That's both illogical & unfair on Gav.
If you'd had FB on ignore, this thread would have been invisible to you, so you wouldn't have even been aware of it to get annoyed either by it or by FB again. |
True but the other threads would have become unreadable in the process |  |
| |
| Burgess wouldn't have done that. (n/t) on 17:11 - Feb 4 with 427 views | FrimleyBlue |
| Burgess wouldn't have done that. (n/t) on 17:10 - Feb 4 by NeedhamChris |
True but the other threads would have become unreadable in the process |
Out of interest.
In the threads you speak of. What points do you disagree with? | |
| |
| Burgess wouldn't have done that. (n/t) on 17:12 - Feb 4 with 422 views | J2BLUE |
| Burgess wouldn't have done that. (n/t) on 17:09 - Feb 4 by Ryorry |
That's both illogical & unfair on Gav.
If you'd had FB on ignore, this thread would have been invisible to you, so you wouldn't have even been aware of it to get annoyed either by it or by FB again. |
No it isn't. The ignore function is not very good. I've said many times I would happily pay a subscription for a decent one.
I had FB on ignore until about 2 days ago. Having him on ignore makes many threads unreadable due to him posting so much. You are right I would not have seen this thread but the forum would still be unusable. |  |
| |
| Burgess wouldn't have done that. (n/t) on 17:12 - Feb 4 with 416 views | Skip_Intro |
here you go again...have a day off ffs |  | | |
| Burgess wouldn't have done that. (n/t) on 17:13 - Feb 4 with 408 views | NeedhamChris |
| Burgess wouldn't have done that. (n/t) on 17:11 - Feb 4 by FrimleyBlue |
Out of interest.
In the threads you speak of. What points do you disagree with? |
I'm not saying I'd ignore you. I'm agreeing that if I chose to it would make the forum unusable because of your volume of posts. | |
| |
| Burgess wouldn't have done that. (n/t) on 17:15 - Feb 4 with 372 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Burgess wouldn't have done that. (n/t) on 15:36 - Feb 4 by FrimleyBlue |
We'll never know SB.
But your man has been shte today. |
"Your man" oh dear! |  |
| |
| Burgess wouldn't have done that. (n/t) on 17:20 - Feb 4 with 326 views | Schmoke |
| Burgess wouldn't have done that. (n/t) on 17:11 - Feb 4 by FrimleyBlue |
Out of interest.
In the threads you speak of. What points do you disagree with? |
You really are excellent at this.
A Haalandesque freak of nature.
You can't and won't keep it up though. It's impossible to keep up this insanely high level of performance in the long run.
You'll trip up (again) eventually but the gods won't be so forgiving a second time I think.
In all seriousness though, whatever your reasons are for doing this, just have a break from it. It's not good for you. Deep down you know it. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
