starryian

[grahameb]

What about for threatening to expose people?

And what about accusing people without foundation? He won't even defend me. this forum stinks now I'm afraid. Soon it will be called the Bamber Lamberton foundation.

[-Harters-]

Harts, does rising damp exist?

It does.

[andrea]

It was something i saw on QI lastnight, there is some debate about it though?

[Moe Cassani]

Just a message,
I have tried to be as polite as I can and offer an alternative opinion so as to get to the truth. I have been shamelessly attacked by Grahame who seems to believe that this forum belongs to him and the only views to be expressed are the one's he himself subscribes to.
Most of the posters on here are very accepting and decent people and will debate without resorting to the kind of foul language and abuse I have suffered from him. Most who have read Grahame comments will know what I mean here.
I can honestly say I am NOT here to cause any kind of disruption, nor cause any trouble. This only arises when Grahame gets involved in a debate and starts kicking off and using foul language. I seek the truth. As anti-Bamber as some of my posts may sound I have still left open other possibilities and enjoy a good, honest debate. Posters such as Patti, Buddy and Roch seem to have some good and thoughtful ideas. I can also assure people that my name is, in fact Maurice and I am from Essex regardless of what some others are saying I am not a person called Lamberton or Tim or Starryian or Rhodes of anyone else I have been accused of being.
If you would like to debate please do with me, if not I ask you kindly please do not subject me to a tirade of abuse.

[Roch]

I suppose he can do what he likes. 

He can definitely ban people for being disruptive though.

Can you please clarify your top comment?

[Moe Cassani]

Grahame, Roch cant ban people for having a differing opinion.

Andrea you seem to have a sensible point of view, where do you stand on the Bamber issue?

[-Harters-]

It was something i saw on QI lastnight, there is some debate about it though?

I did wonder what you were going on about, I thought I was being thick. 

I didn't see IQ (Edit: QI even  ), but I'm guessing that it referred to a book called 'The myth of rising damp'.

All I know is that I've renovated many old buildings which were damp, after putting DPC's, DPM's, injecting brickwork etc, they dried out. Of course it might have just been the contractors relieving themselves. 

Very random Andi.   :D

[andrea]

I think he's guilty, Mo.

[Moe Cassani]

Maggie. That is my whole purpose in all this. To expose these Lamberton lovers for what and who they are. But dear old Moe here hasn't cottoned on yet. haha Soon you will see what he is really like.

I think that is really unfair Grahame. You dont know me at all and you are assuming that you do. That is way out of order. Please stop judging me.

[andrea]

I did wonder what you were going on about, I thought I was being thick. 

I didn't see IQ, but I'm guessing that it referred to a book called 'The myth of rising damp'.

All I know is that I've renovated many old buildings which were damp, after putting DPC's, DPM's, injecting brickwork etc, they dried out. Of course it might have just been the contractors relieving themselves. 

Very random Andi.   :D

I know, Harts. I get a bit random at times.  :D

[-Harters-]

Can you please clarify your top comment?

You mean about doing what you like? 

If so then I meant exactly what I typed, why? 

[grahameb]

I think that is really unfair Grahame. You dont know me at all and you are assuming that you do. That is way out of order. Please stop judging me.

I'm afraid it was you who were judging me unjustly in the first place Moe. That is what started all this. Now you are crying unfair because you think I'm judging you. You accused me of abusing members of the other forum for no reason but on their sayso alone. Instead of doing what you should have done by researching the facts first. This you did not do. Moreover Roch was at fault for not picking you up on it. But instead he accused me of backseat moderation. That too was unfair. If he had done his job this would not have escalated into what it is now.

[Moe Cassani]

I think he's guilty, Mo.

OK thanks Andrea,
I almost believe that too. I just need clarification on a few points. Some things just dont add up to me about this case. I am quite new to it so I have to find my way around it, I just cant get my head around Sheila beating her dad to unconsciousness and the lack of evidence on her nightie. If it wasn't Sheila it had to be Jeremy. Am I right in saying this or have I missed something here?
Thanks again!

[grahameb]

Just a message,
I have tried to be as polite as I can and offer an alternative opinion so as to get to the truth. I have been shamelessly attacked by Grahame who seems to believe that this forum belongs to him and the only views to be expressed are the one's he himself subscribes to.
Most of the posters on here are very accepting and decent people and will debate without resorting to the kind of foul language and abuse I have suffered from him. Most who have read Grahame comments will know what I mean here.
I can honestly say I am NOT here to cause any kind of disruption, nor cause any trouble. This only arises when Grahame gets involved in a debate and starts kicking off and using foul language. I seek the truth. As anti-Bamber as some of my posts may sound I have still left open other possibilities and enjoy a good, honest debate. Posters such as Patti, Buddy and Roch seem to have some good and thoughtful ideas. I can also assure people that my name is, in fact Maurice and I am from Essex regardless of what some others are saying I am not a person called Lamberton or Tim or Starryian or Rhodes of anyone else I have been accused of being.
If you would like to debate please do with me, if not I ask you kindly please do not subject me to a tirade of abuse.

Wrong this started only when you attacked me by accusing me of abuse and other stuff on the other forum. And now you are playing the victim.

[andrea]

OK thanks Andrea,
I almost believe that too. I just need clarification on a few points. Some things just dont add up to me about this case. I am quite new to it so I have to find my way around it, I just cant get my head around Sheila beating her dad to unconsciousness and the lack of evidence on her nightie. If it wasn't Sheila it had to be Jeremy. Am I right in saying this or have I missed something here?
Thanks again!

You're right, Moe. Due to the alleged phone call from neville it puts bamber and Sheila in the frame. Evidence points to Bamber IMO.