Author Topic: Jackie  (Read 41805 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline susan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 16196
Re: Jackie
« Reply #195 on: June 22, 2012, 06:21:PM »
Hi Grahame Jackie is just feeling hurt at the moment and she has more respect for herself than to get involved with unsavoury people. It will just be a flash in the pan.

bloggs and son

  • Guest
Re: Jackie
« Reply #196 on: June 22, 2012, 06:24:PM »
Hi Grahame Jackie is just feeling hurt at the moment and she has more respect for herself than to get involved with unsavoury people. It will just be a flash in the pan.
I hope so? Because all I can see at the moment is that she is digging a big hole for herself by going over there?

Offline susan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 16196
Re: Jackie
« Reply #197 on: June 22, 2012, 06:30:PM »
Hi Grahame  From what I know of Jackie she would not stoop so low as to get involved with the other forum as she has made it so obvious what she thinks of them as I said she will be feeling betrayed just now and this is Jackie lashing out it wont last she is too nice a person to be vindictive and the most important issue for Jackie is the freedom of Jeremy Bamber.

mertol22

  • Guest
Re: Jackie
« Reply #198 on: June 22, 2012, 06:37:PM »
Given all the tsunami of abuse she has recieved from Lambertons forum perhaps she is giving them what they want to burn them out her reasons for posting may look obvious but there will be another reason, rather than take shite she is taking it them they must have never expected  that.

bloggs and son

  • Guest
Re: Jackie
« Reply #199 on: June 22, 2012, 06:53:PM »
Given all the tsunami of abuse she has recieved from Lambertons forum perhaps she is giving them what they want to burn them out her reasons for posting may look obvious but there will be another reason, rather than take shite she is taking it them they must have never expected  that.
No Mertol. I know her real reasons.

mertol22

  • Guest
Re: Jackie
« Reply #200 on: June 22, 2012, 11:21:PM »
No Mertol. I know her real reasons.
i have some more info now, however i will say with jackie what happened was a clash a clash or conflict of thought, in the past this type of thing started like  a firework on Novemver 5  and watch it fizzle out, it was deemed banter over .

Offline OnceSaid

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1198
Re: Jackie
« Reply #201 on: June 23, 2012, 01:33:AM »
I have just noticed this discussion tonight but I had hoped by the time I had reached the end of this thread, that it was all a terrible misunderstanding and everything would have been resolved. 

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17250
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: Jackie
« Reply #202 on: June 23, 2012, 01:58:AM »
how can we be sure thats really her posting there.

i cant see her burying the hatchet with them lot that quickly.

Offline andrea

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1385
Re: Jackie
« Reply #203 on: June 23, 2012, 02:09:AM »
Shes obviously out to cause trouble.
On Ilkley Moor Baht'at.

guest154

  • Guest
Re: Jackie
« Reply #204 on: June 23, 2012, 04:12:AM »
how can we be sure thats really her posting there.

i cant see her burying the hatchet with them lot that quickly.

It's Jackie. She told me it herself via her email.

bloggs and son

  • Guest
Re: Jackie
« Reply #205 on: June 23, 2012, 10:16:AM »
Shes obviously out to cause trouble.
Thats a bit hypocritical isn't it Andrea? After you being over on the lamberton forum joining in all the laughing and joking about people on this forum. Then have the audacity to come over here as if nothing has happened. Seems you are one of those out to cause trouble. >:( >:( >:( >:(

Offline andrea

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1385
Re: Jackie
« Reply #206 on: June 23, 2012, 10:46:AM »
Really, grahame? and what trouble have i caused?
On Ilkley Moor Baht'at.

bloggs and son

  • Guest
Re: Jackie
« Reply #207 on: June 23, 2012, 12:19:PM »
Really, grahame? and what trouble have i caused?
I'm not arguing with you Andrea. Coming back here as if nothing has happened indeed. Without any sense of responsibility or apology. You must be as blind as a bat not to know the trouble you have caused by actually being a part of that despicable forum after deleting you account here. Personally I am very surprised and might even say disgusted that you are even allowed to post here when I expressly posted some time ago that I didn't want you or your cronies back here at all. And now they are talking about a "permanent" ban for Jackie. Who has contributed far far more than you ever did.

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13651
Re: Jackie
« Reply #208 on: June 23, 2012, 12:27:PM »
I'm not arguing with you Andrea. Coming back here as if nothing has happened indeed. Without any sense of responsibility or apology. You must be as blind as a bat not to know the trouble you have caused by actually being a part of that despicable forum after deleting you account here. Personally I am very surprised and might even say disgusted that you are even allowed to post here when I expressly posted some time ago that I didn't want you or your cronies back here at all. And now they are talking about a "permanent" ban for Jackie. Who has contributed far far more than you ever did.
Well said Grahame. ;D ;D

Offline petey

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1309
Re: Jackie
« Reply #209 on: June 23, 2012, 12:43:PM »
I'm not arguing with you Andrea. Coming back here as if nothing has happened indeed. Without any sense of responsibility or apology. You must be as blind as a bat not to know the trouble you have caused by actually being a part of that despicable forum after deleting you account here. Personally I am very surprised and might even say disgusted that you are even allowed to post here when I expressly posted some time ago that I didn't want you or your cronies back here at all. And now they are talking about a "permanent" ban for Jackie. Who has contributed far far more than you ever did.

That may very well be your opinion. But as far as I am aware this is not your forum, you are not an administrator or moderator and are just a normal member like me. This means that whatever you may have posted is not set in stone as the rules of this forum.

Irrespective of what may or may not have been said on other forums, on this forum we should welcome all posters from either side of the fence, who have valuable contributions to make.

Therefore, as long as she abides by forum rules, Andrea should definitely be welcomed and encouraged to post and further debate, in my opinion.