> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:leedslist- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nigel Holcroft > Sent: 10 July 2007 00:19 > To: 'leedslist' > Subject: Re: [LU] Spherical Objects > > > "Non-committed, or against one's true belief." Either way, I would say > that > gels with the idea of detached and non-passionate, but have it your > own > way... The Devil's Advocate was one of those items you pulled out of > thin > air once your position started to crumble, even in your own eyes..
Look Nigel, my position has never crumbled and any passion that arose from questioning the unquestioned campaign against the current owners of Leeds United came when I was not given answers and/or I was attacked for being a Bates fan. In fact at one point I was accused of being in Bates employ. > > The other, in that same email is the one you have continued to cite; > that > being the idea that, for some reason, best known to you the LUST call > for a > "fair and equal bidding process, for ALL bidders," somehow equates to > your > wild idea that they are supporting the bid from REDBUS only. Not at all, if you want my honest opinion, and you probably don't but you'll get it anyway, it is that LUST do indeed support 'anyone but Bates' but clearly have to not burn bridges in the event Bates retains ownership. They do not represent me so on the whole I am not really bothered who they support, but the fact that the word 'transparency' has been bandied about on the list quite a lot in criticism of the current LUFC owners, and whatever is said or done I cannot shake the idea that they haven't been transparent themselves in all this. Perhaps with good reason, burning bridges etc.. but anyhow, thats an itch that will have to remain unscratched. > > The one aspect of the Devil's Advocate, scenario which may ring true > now, is > the part where the definitions agree that it is done, "for the sake of > argument." Indeed in the face of facts and evidence that have caused > your > case to crumble, you now continue to argue for the sake of > argument...and What 'facts', and more importantly what 'evidence'? What argument has 'crumbled'? Actually, are we 'arguing' at all at the moment? I don't think so. Put it this way, you and PaulC think I am pro Bates. I do not think that RickD believes that but I might be wrong. It doesn't matter how many times I tell you I am not, you still think I am. The facts are that I am not, but the only evidence is what I tell you with my own mouth. Has your argument 'crumbled' in the face of such overwhelming facts and evidence? No. So where are we? We are where we are at the moment, I only hope that whoever has won the bid at noon today gets 'quiet possession' of the club and we can finally get on with supporting our team despite what the owners and authorities do to shit on us. That is the way it has always been, and will always be. > with that I'll end my side of playing your games.. From here out, post > away, unchallenged ... I'm sure you're more suited to playing with > yourself. Oh but only if I were the only wanker on this list! :) _______________________________________________ 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
