Author Topic: Buddy  (Read 31828 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline puglove

Re: Buddy
« Reply #45 on: September 29, 2012, 12:17:17 AM »
We had Joey Essex in Kirkstall today promoting Surf, its crap

The washing powder?

Yes.

Seriously?? Blimey!! I thought you were going to say it was a programme about surfing, or something. Dur!!
Jeremy Bamber kicked Mike Tesko in the fanny.

Offline puglove

Re: Buddy
« Reply #46 on: September 29, 2012, 12:21:09 AM »
We had Joey Essex in Kirkstall today promoting Surf, its crap

The washing powder?

Yes.

Seriously?? Blimey!! I thought you were going to say it was a programme about surfing, or something. Dur!!

Right. If we're having a sesh tomorrow night, I'd better get some kip. See you then, BESTY!!! XXX
Jeremy Bamber kicked Mike Tesko in the fanny.

Offline abs

Re: Buddy
« Reply #47 on: September 30, 2012, 01:28:28 PM »

Offline Angelo222

Re: Buddy
« Reply #48 on: September 30, 2012, 02:14:45 PM »
Buddy´s Nuts

http://goanimate.com/videos/0bKsC79iQtNY/1

Can I make a suggestion peeps in the light of recent events?  I want to suggest that we don't allow any former blue forum members to join this forum because frankly they offer absolutely nothing to either the community or the debate.  I specifically refer to Jackie Preece and Buddy in this. Both came here with false offerings and both went crawling back to the blue forum without ever taking part in any discussion on the Bamber case.  I believe we should close the door right now and draw a line under this.  I also suggest we give anyone a few days to come across and if they don't then they will never be allowed to in the future.
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Offline John

Re: Buddy
« Reply #49 on: September 30, 2012, 02:22:51 PM »
Buddy´s Nuts

http://goanimate.com/videos/0bKsC79iQtNY/1

Can I make a suggestion peeps in the light of recent events?  I want to suggest that we don't allow any former blue forum members to join this forum because frankly they offer absolutely nothing to either the community or the debate.  I specifically refer to Jackie Preece and Buddy in this. Both came here with false offerings and both went crawling back to the blue forum without ever taking part in any discussion on the Bamber case.  I believe we should close the door right now and draw a line under this.  I also suggest we give anyone a few days to come across and if they don't then they will never be allowed to in the future.

A novel idea Dave and I admit to liking it in some ways. It is true what you say about Jackie and Cliff though, they came over here on a false promise and failed abysmally.  It is for the members to decide though on such an important issue so I will set up a poll when I get back to my hacienda.
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline abs

Re: Buddy
« Reply #50 on: September 30, 2012, 03:37:51 PM »
Buddy is still a member, isn´t he? What is the problem regarding him?

Offline Joanne

Re: Buddy
« Reply #51 on: September 30, 2012, 04:00:41 PM »
I don't really know if it's 'right' to put a blanket ban on people because they post somewhere else, thats why they banned me from the blue forum, as far as I'm concerned I haven't caused anyone an issue over there except Steph, Jackie and Kevin Craigie.
I think, I would like to see people being given a chance, if they break the forum rules then they go but I would like to see guest posting halted because it may (and I say may because I'm not really technical) help to cut down on hidemyass types if the new members have to be approved first-do they say 'proxy' something when it's hidemyass etc?
And really, we would have no way of 'policing' a system of stopping blue forum people joining since not many use their 'proper' names over there.
I would ask, if Mike, NGB, Roch or Pete are reading, would you please consider sharing ip addresses with us, so we can cut disruption out? I'm not asking you to like me, be my new best friend or anyone else's but it might be mutually benefitial.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2012, 04:03:50 PM by Joanne »

Offline abs

Re: Buddy
« Reply #52 on: September 30, 2012, 04:11:32 PM »
I wouldn´t have been able to become a member with such a rule. I know my views are not popular here, but I am not disruptive. Not all former blue board members are.

Offline Joanne

Re: Buddy
« Reply #53 on: September 30, 2012, 04:16:38 PM »
Abs, NOBODY at all has ever said you are not popular, nor have any of your posts been reported. They may have been removed when a conversation or lots of replies have been removed but only because the remainder of the thread would not have made any sense should they have been left up.

Offline Tim Invictus

Re: Buddy
« Reply #54 on: September 30, 2012, 04:23:12 PM »
Abs is a star. Buddy doesn't seem to be  problem and neither would Roach be in my opinion. I will draw the line at Mertol though as he creeps me out (when I can understand him that is).

As long as pro and anti's alike treat each other AND the police and Bamber's extended family with respect there should be no problem.

Offline Andrea

Re: Buddy
« Reply #55 on: September 30, 2012, 05:17:59 PM »
IMO it isnt fair to ban posters from the blue forum, we allow opposing views dont we? I welcome Buddy being here and any other poster, as long as they abide by the rules, and Buddy usually does.

There are exceptions of course, the ones who have been pointed out already.

Offline abs

Re: Buddy
« Reply #56 on: September 30, 2012, 05:23:00 PM »
IMO it isnt fair to ban posters from the blue forum, we allow opposing views dont we? I welcome Buddy being here and any other poster, as long as they abide by the rules, and Buddy usually does.

There are exceptions of course, the ones who have been pointed out already.

In my opinion there are only two very bothersome posters, namely the  Duracell-Rabbit Twins of Complaints, Paranoia and Rants.

Well, Mr.Über-pompous Grahame too of course. Had forgotten about him!
« Last Edit: September 30, 2012, 05:53:23 PM by abs »

Offline Tim Invictus

Re: Buddy
« Reply #57 on: September 30, 2012, 05:47:23 PM »
Uber pompous!  @)(++(*

Offline abs

Re: Buddy
« Reply #58 on: September 30, 2012, 05:55:43 PM »
Uber pompous!  @)(++(*

Had written "Grahametoo" - and "Grahamtosaurus" popped into my mind. Good name!  8((()*/

Offline puglove

Re: Buddy
« Reply #59 on: September 30, 2012, 06:12:06 PM »
IMO it isnt fair to ban posters from the blue forum, we allow opposing views dont we? I welcome Buddy being here and any other poster, as long as they abide by the rules, and Buddy usually does.

There are exceptions of course, the ones who have been pointed out already.

In my opinion there are only two very bothersome posters, namely the  Duracell-Rabbit Twins of Complaints, Paranoia and Rants.

Well, Mr.Über-pompous Grahame too of course. Had forgotten about him!

We can't let Dementia Blumpkin take the mick out of us, like she does with ngb and Rochy. And Gladys/Lugg (Glugg?) would never come here, he's too much of a pissy-willy.

LOVED your film, Abs!! I'm sure Buddy will too!!
Jeremy Bamber kicked Mike Tesko in the fanny.