> When do you balance your argument or is balancing arguments only a > pre-requisite for others?
But if posted balanced arguments it would still be tipped in your favour. If you lot, who seem to like posting a constant stream of 'news' about Bates, posted ALL the news about Bates then I wouldn't waste my time with you on this. As I am not the only one who seems to think there are ulterior motives behind what you lot do or say then you wont make me think I am going mad by imagining it. I am not saying your ulterior motives are wrong, I just want to know what they are. I still have yet to see reasons for raking over the coals that, to me, justify it. An example - you are painting Bates out to be some kind of mercenary monster who will do anything for a quick buck. There was some negative publicity before the vote, which I can only assume was either said on the list or linked to on the list (otherwise I doubt I would have read it) where it was alleged that some hospital or hospice or something would be left out of pocket by going into administration. That forced a representative of the hospital/hospice to come out in the press and say that not only were they not owed anything, but that LUFC and Bates himself make regular charitable donations to them. Did you miss that? Did you report that? Not that it makes any difference in the overall scheme of things, but its another example of your lot's selective reporting. > > > I am not saying Mark Taylor is telling any or all of the > > whole truth, but it > > sure is nice to see there is another option to the Bates > > Conspiracy Theory. > > As Taylor is Bates' solicitor I would be more surprised if he had > responded > to Phil Willis' questions in a positive way and offered to answer > publicly > in full any questions he may have. > What value to you attribute to Taylor's statement then? If you don't > think > the statement is truthful then there would seem little point posting it > to > the list. We can all post untruthful things to the list, but to what > end? In > fact, you do it all the time, so why do you? First, I didn't post it (but I would have), second I would have posted it simply for balance. Either side might be talking a crock of shit, but its nice to read both crocks of shit to see which, if any, we believe. If you lot think for a second I buy all Bates spin then you are about as naive as Krasner was selling to Bates to begin with. I am not trying to provide accurate/truthful/fact-busting counter arguments for you lot. I wasn't there, I am not a LUFC board member, I do not work for Astor or KPMG. I also have nothing to do with LUST or any other bid, past or present. I don't pretend or allude to know more than I do. I just get sick to death of reading email and hitting upon yet another snide aside, or request for people to lobby their mp, or anti Bates link (cos Bates is so loved by the press, anything negative surely must be true). Basically I trust you lot about as much as I trust the press/Bates/Morris/Krasner/Levi at the moment because I know I am not being told the full story by anyone. Which is fine. But thats where I am coming from. I have no doubt you are in possession of lots of the 'facts'. You are also in possession of lots of 'opinions' which may come from knowing facts, but I suspect they also come from other sources too. I can see no other logical reason for seemingly wanting a full investigation of the buyback and money laundering etc, which can only cause further disruption for Dennis Wise and the team. Are you going to tell us all now why you think that would be good for the team this season? Are you going to tell us if you feel personally hard done to by Bates? _______________________________________________ the Leeds List is an unmoderated mailing list and the list administrators accept no liability for the personal views and opinions of contributors. Leedslist mailing list [email protected] http://list.zetnet.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist Join The Leeds United Supporters Trust at www.lufctrust.org
