[LU] Man City at Home

Thankfully we opted out of that…! ___ Leedslist mailing list Info and options: https://mailman.gn.apc.org/mailman/listinfo/leedslist To unsubscribe, email leedslist-unsubscr...@gn.apc.org FLAME WARS 'R US

Re: [LU] non LU......well, actually, that's the point......LU (ish)

Why would I, or anyone else want to buy a book written by you, when we see the sort of stuff you write on this list, abusive, insulting racist insults, that has gone on for years and years against a lad from Leeds. Mike has done more for this world than you will ever do. You should be ashamed

Re: [LU] non LU......well, actually, that's the point......LU (ish)

Oh that I missed. Please don't ban me. On Thursday, October 26, 2017, 11:57:47 AM EDT, Matt Anderson wrote: There was an unanswered attack on dr mike a few days ago, I expect this was brewing and it's all my fault Sent from my iPhone > On 26 Oct 2017, at

Re: [LU] Leedslist Digest, Vol 88, Issue 22

Twas anticipatory steaming… Michael A. Gardiner LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL A. GARDINER 110 West “A” Street, Suite 950 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619.238.9800 Fax: 619.814.3727 E-mail: mgardi...@gardinerlegal.com Confidentiality Notice: This electronic mail

Re: [LU] non LU......well, actually, that's the point......LU (ish)

Mike, I think the lists' confusion lies in the fact that you mentioned "searching through my past emails" on a number of occasions, whereas I certainly speak for myself when I say that I didn't see that evidenced in anything posted to the list. I/We may have missed something or perhaps

Re: [LU] Tomorrow

It's worth trying. The Bristol game came as a pleasant surprise. Having proven we have the bottle we go into Xmas looking good. If we have plan A & B in both attack and defence, we have a better guideline wrt recruitment. IMO we have over 20 million in the notorious war-chest. If the money is

Re: [LU] non LU......well, actually, that's the point......LU (ish)

I was infuriated by an act I described at least twice. But you decide. Good luck & MOT-- Michael -Original Message- From: Leedslist [mailto:leedslist-boun...@gn.apc.org] On Behalf Of {broken-address} Graham White Sent: 26 October 2017 16:41 To: Peter Castlehouse

Re: [LU] non LU......well, actually, that's the point......LU (ish)

There was an unanswered attack on dr mike a few days ago, I expect this was brewing and it's all my fault Sent from my iPhone > On 26 Oct 2017, at 15:05, {broken-address} Nicholas Armit > wrote: > > Looked to me like Mike misread a post from someone

Re: [LU] non LU......well, actually, that's the point......LU (ish)

Please don't ban me Sent from my iPhone > On 26 Oct 2017, at 15:52, {broken-address} Nicholas Armit > wrote: > > Matt was the instigator (harmlessly no doubt) Dr Mike responded to his email > I believe: > |-Original Message- >> |From: Leedslist

Re: [LU] Tomorrow

I like the idea of a 532 / 352 formation (if that’s what he’s going for.) Gives us the option of playing 2 up front which I think would be better at home. Simon Sent from my iPhone > On 26 Oct 2017, at 16:45, Richard Naef > wrote: > > At the moment we seem

Re: [LU] Tomorrow

At the moment we seem to have 4 decent Centre halves, Shaugnessey, Pennington, Jannson and Cooper, 3 out of those 4 with Dallas and Ayling as wing backs would be interesting. Its a risk against The rusties, but as i dare say they have a game plan built around our normal 4-5-1 formation, it

Re: [LU] non LU......well, actually, that's the point......LU (ish)

Matt only said what I wanted to be daren't I was counting down from Matt's post but I did not expect Rob to get so much grief. -Original Message- From: Leedslist [mailto:leedslist-boun...@gn.apc.org] On Behalf Of {broken-address} Nicholas Armit Sent: 26 October 2017 15:53 To:

Re: [LU] non LU......well, actually, that's the point......LU (ish)

I've just noticed the "Flame Wars 'R Us" in the email trailers  From: Leedslist on behalf of Nigel Sykes Sent: 26 October 2017 15:11 To: Leeds List Subject: Re: [LU] non LU..well, actually, that's the

Re: [LU] non LU......well, actually, that's the point......LU (ish)

Ha! You're right! It wasn't even Rob's joke about Israel! Nigel (the Dublin one) -Original Message- From: Leedslist [mailto:leedslist-boun...@gn.apc.org] On Behalf Of {broken-address} Nicholas Armit Sent: 26 October 2017 15:53 To: {broken-address} Nicholas Armit; Peter Castlehouse;

Re: [LU] non LU......well, actually, that's the point......LU (ish)

Right that's it your are all banned :-) I'll sort this out after I measured an arch for Xmas lights up the village. Boris John On 26/10/2017 15:52, {broken-address} Nicholas Armit wrote: Matt was the instigator (harmlessly no doubt) Dr Mike responded to his email I believe: |-Original

Re: [LU] non LU......well, actually, that's the point......LU (ish)

Matt was the instigator (harmlessly no doubt) Dr Mike responded to his email I believe: |-Original Message- > |From: Leedslist [mailto:leedslist-boun...@gn.apc.org] On Behalf Of Matt > |Anderson > |Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 11:30 AM > |To: Rob Heath > |Cc: 

Re: [LU] non LU......well, actually, that's the point......LU (ish)

It was all very odd wasn't it? As far as I can see, Rob had a little poke at his old sparring partner with a fairly harmless (though probably ill-advised) joke about receiving book orders from Israel. Then all hell broke loose from Dr Mike, who talked about emails from Rob that suggest him

Re: [LU] non LU......well, actually, that's the point......LU (ish)

Agree, I didn't notice anything provocative from Rob. I think the "dr" was in the wrong this time. Mark El Presidente Wisconsin Whites Leeds United Chicago Fire From: Leedslist on behalf of {broken-address} Nicholas Armit

Re: [LU] non LU......well, actually, that's the point......LU (ish)

Looked to me like Mike misread a post from someone else as coming from Rob. In that case I feel Rob deserves an apology. Nick On Thursday, October 26, 2017, 9:42:28 AM EDT, {broken-address} Graham White wrote: I know both have been guilty in

Re: [LU] non LU......well, actually, that's the point......LU (ish)

I know both have been guilty in the past, but what got me last night was that, as far as I could see, there was absolutely no provocation from Rob Heath and yet Dr. Benjamin came steaming straight in with literally insane ranting. Cheers Graham White On Thursday, 26

[LU] Tomorrow

TC has got waccoe and YP in a spin suggesting he MAY go 3 at the back - based on the fact that he said he may not need a specialist full back (with Berardi suspended, CBJ injured and Coyle / Denton out on loan we do not have a 'specialist full back' - Anita is very much a 'stand in' Having said

Re: [LU] non LU......well, actually, that's the point......LU (ish)

I voted yes only because I can show my 12 year old son that some adults will forever behave as if they are children. Ed > On 26 Oct 2017, at 11:07, Peter Castlehouse wrote: > > If you keep changing your name, we might have to get you to re-subscribe > too... Big Terry

Re: [LU] non LU......well, actually, that's the point......LU (ish)

Voted. Can't for the life of me figure out what triggered it this time. Amusingly, Desmond Decker's Israelites is on the office Sonos! On 26 October 2017 at 11:07, Peter Castlehouse wrote: > If you keep changing your name, we might have to get you to re-subscribe >

Re: [LU] non LU......well, actually, that's the point......LU (ish)

If you keep changing your name, we might have to get you to re-subscribe too... Big Terry Boocock-Cameron huh? Shall we have a referendum on this folks? -Original Message- From: Leedslist [mailto:leedslist-boun...@gn.apc.org] On Behalf Of John Boocock Sent: 26 October 2017 20:55 To:

Re: [LU] non LU......well, actually, that's the point......LU (ish)

The survey has been created, link here: https://s.surveyplanet.com/S1_AJE1CW Binding referendum I think... depends on the weather in Harrogate I think? Totally democratic society us Listers aren't we? Results in when people stop completing the survey, which is when survey answers show a distinct

Re: [LU] non LU......well, actually, that's the point......LU (ish)

It will only be binding after I've made a decision but of course I'll let you all vote on that after implementation has occurred. (If I'm still here of course) Big Terry On 26/10/2017 10:49, Chris Nickson wrote: ​Will it be a binding referendum? And if they want to resub, who will be in

Re: [LU] non LU......well, actually, that's the point......LU (ish)

​Will it be a binding referendum? And if they want to resub, who will be in charge of negotiations? Will there be a transition period? ​ On 26 October 2017 at 10:44, John Boocock wrote: > Bloody hell I've only just seen all this because I too was playing Bridge > (some of

Re: [LU] non LU......well, actually, that's the point......LU (ish)

On it now Betty, will post the link in five minutes Pete -Original Message- From: Leedslist [mailto:leedslist-boun...@gn.apc.org] On Behalf Of John Boocock Sent: 26 October 2017 20:45 To: leedslist@gn.apc.org Subject: Re: [LU] non LU..well, actually, that's the point..LU (ish)

Re: [LU] non LU......well, actually, that's the point......LU (ish)

Bloody hell I've only just seen all this because I too was playing Bridge (some of this is true) I think we should have a list referendum as to whether we should re sub them. Anyone able to set up a poll site Dr Mike Yes  / No, Rob Heath Yes / No? Theresa Boocock-Cameron Esq On

Re: [LU] non LU......well, actually, that's the point......LU (ish)

I didn’t ‘throw them off the list’… I simply clicked their unsubscribe button. They have the opportunity to re-subscribe at their leisure, as was advised, and Betty can make the mighty decision whether to allow them back on. Cheers Pete From: Richard Walker

Re: [LU] non LU......well, actually, that's the point......LU (ish)

throwing people off the list even for Non-LU posts ? Most entertaining posts for a while from Mad MIke IMO. Get them back on.  From: Peter Castlehouse To: 'Michael Benjamin' ; 'Rob Heath' Cc: leedslist@gn.apc.org Sent: Thursday,

Re: [LU] non LU......well, actually, that's the point......LU (ish)

Was it something I said? ;-)  Verner tHe LiTtLe YeLlOw DaFfOdIl @}-,-'-- From: Peter Castlehouse To: 'Michael Benjamin' ; 'Rob Heath' Cc: leedslist@gn.apc.org Sent: Thursday, 26 October 2017, 7:18 Subject: Re: [LU] non

Re: [LU] non LU......well, actually, that's the point......LU (ish)

Well, you have both prompted an admin response, after your non-LU rantings. This has gone too far, in every aspect, and is not good protocol in anyone's eyes. Rob and Michael, I have unsubbed you both from the list. Should Betty decide in his wisdom to let you back on board, I am sure he will

Re: [LU] non LU......well, actually, that's the point......LU (ish)

Rob, I am going to get both of us thrown out. You know fine well just what you did. You pour over every post. Stop pissiing around. Why you even bother beats me. Time after time you are told—leave Isreal out. And you pull it back in. This last thread was not started by you. Nor did you mention