Jump to content

Overlord - Show report.


Recommended Posts

I think having Richard's considered response to the original question is worth the wait. I can see that John is...., I can't put words or thoughts in his mouth; so my assessment is...skeptical - (we've never met beyond a wave from his valentine turret ). But this has been a long running mystery/saga/wound - call it what you will. I am not the sharpest of moderators on this forum by any means - but I think a pause is needed. You blokes have the best of intentions at heart and agree that a balanced look at this is best for everyone. So over to you, Richard. I feel my duty is to act with conciliation at heart. End of lecture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I would have thought you could have given the bare bones of your version of what happened in a post about as long as the last one you posted saying that you needed more time?

 

Am I being fobbed off and/or do you wish I had never raised the query in the first place? If so then I wonder why you replied on 11 June, offering to explain?

 

I do hope you will put out your version of events as soon as possible but if you choose to leave the rumours unanswered or do not find the time then so be it: no one can force you to counter the rumours if you choose not to. If that were the case then I presume people will draw whatever conclusions they wish and my curiosity will have to remain unsatisfied (which in the great scheme of things is hardly a major occurance.)

 

 

Well the passage of time certainly makes it look as if I was just being fobbed off. As you have chosen not to explain, you have gone a long way to convincing me at least that in fact the rumours did have a basis of truth.. Bet you wish you had never responded in the first place offering to 'explain'.............

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you look back to my original post in June, I was merely curious about the rumours. As you can see there was a reply which did NOT ask what they were, which I must admit I thought strange: I mean if someone says they have heard you have done such and such, the very first thing you ask is what exactly have they heard or is it just me that thinks like that?

Anyway, that reply made me even more curious and I welcomed it when I was offered an explanation. Sadly, as I have recently posted, no explanation was forthcoming.

I would much have preferred 'mind your own business, baldy' than being fobbed off (which I hate.)

Now it is my turn to be awkward however. I have no doubt that the versions I heard were biased as they came second hand from a member of the MVT committee who were clearly aggrieved by what had happened and had no real interest in being even handed or fair. As I have no way of knowing which bits are true, which bits are exaggerated and which bits are incorrect, it is obviously wrong for me to publish them to a wider audience here. The broad subject was financial management, agreements and payments but beyond that I cannot go. Sorry.

To be honest, I wish I had never started this now, I really was just curious, not malicious. The offer for anyone who REALLY knows to explain is still open however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...