Roofaldo owned yet again.

Seriously we have some of the thickest fans on the planet. Can't accept being wrong ever. Although we usually are.

Well, some of us anyway.

Fair enough, I would still fancy our chances in a game of Eggheads v Wakefield fans but that is about it.

(Note to Gutterfax - don't state an opinion/tell the truth about our club on here. The natives get restless. They can't handle the truth)

Well you're usually wrong and don't admit it. People in glass houses and all that.

As for Gutterfax. You made constant character attacks. You made up facts to justify your position. You ignored information that disproved your arguments. In fact, the only smokescreen was the one you were desperate to put up to move eyes away from London's plight and have everyone talking about how Bradford should be kicked out of the league and therefore weakening the chances of London being kicked out. Which as I've already said, you didn't need to do as no one was looking at London because no one cares.

As I've said, repeatedly but as Gutterfax can't process anything that doesn't agree with his argument, I was defending the fact that Mr Whitcutt being involved with the club was not going to be detrimental. The club is still here, he had a hand in sorting out new owners to keep the club here. The RFL ratified the new owners and gave Mr Whitcutt the option of asking for an exemption or even appealing against the RFL's decision on him (again, information purposefully ignored by Gutterfax). So until there's an actual problem with the new board I don't see how me saying "Ryan Whitcutt was not and is not detrimental to the future of the Bulls" is wrong.

But I'm sure you can explain it to me. Go ahead, make something up again.

The sodding adverts on tv and the mysterious circles appearing around tat in the argos catalogue tell us that it is Christmas and we are morally bound to stop sniping at one another.

Some, the ones who enjoy the travails of others for instance, just drop so low they don't deserve it though, do they? Y'know, not wanting to get my fax wrong or descend into the gutter, like...

Think we should be supporting Roofaldo

Why so? He had been made to look somewhat foolish on here and will not let it go. Roofaldo is another one of the few on here that seem to think they know everything about the club when they generally get found to be utterly clueless.

It seems that there are too many people come on here and cannot take any criticism of the club whatsoever. Why bother? It is a discussion forum, and if you cannot take a bit of stick about your side you would be as well not bothering.

Eddie, to paraphrase you am I right in thinking you said "bah humbug"?

Aye. That will do.

How so? Come on, what are you basing that on, other than Gutterfax's making up his own version of events?

Please, tell me. If I have this character flaw then I'd like to correct it. So come on, tell me what I said that was wrong in my assertion that Mr Whitcutt was not and, so far, has not been nor currently is detrimental to the future of the Bulls?

As far as I can see, neither you nor Gutterfax can tell me what is wrong with what I've said, but only that it's wrong.

So I implore you, oh he who knows all, what is precisely WRONG with my argument?

I don't claim to be all knowing, if I'm wrong I'll admit to it. But you and your new bosom buddy don't seem to be able to actually point to something and say "There, that is what you have said that was wrong"

But I wait with baited breath for you to do so.

This is my first comment on Mr Whitcut in this thread.....the cause of your ire, the reason for your anger.



Feel free to point out the stuff I made up, the lies I spread or where I am wrong? I added my opinion as to him being a failed publican given the names of his failed/dissolved companies, but I was 100% correct in my assertion that he wasn't fit and proper person as per the RFL rules.

Do you like eating humble pie hot or cold?

You see, it is this kind of generalised, repetitive, self-righteous sniping that leaves such a bad atmosphere around here.


What? Eh? Who seems that? I must have missed them. Who are these people?

If there were such people, then WHY would they have ANY less right to state their opinion than (say) you?


Er, because it is a "discussion forum"? You know, people of all shades of opinion, discussiing things?


OMG. You actually know!




Says by far the touchiest prima donna the board has ever seen! You really couldn't make it up. Your home must be that full of bats I'm surprised you can get through the door.

Careful FA. By using roofaldos' logic then you will be described as his new "bosom buddy."

Well, I had a nice weekend.

History (and a partial history at that ) cannot always be used to predict the future and on that basis I too would judge Whitcut by what he has done for the Bulls rather than his past record with other organisations. As far as I an determine, he has helped to put a board together that has satisfied the RFL, and then quietly disappeared to pastures new. Compared to the actions of some of his predecessors with influence, a pretty good record.

There's a gig going at Wibsey methodist church if he is out of work.

Surely they can't sack a man for unorthodox outreach and evangelism? Reformation deniers!

And seeking spiritual enlightenment, surely?

Except I never said that [ithis[/i quote contained lies or made up facts. I was going to go trawl up where you HAVE made up facts, ignored other pertinent information or just plain lied but then I realised that

(a) I've better things to do with my time than show you your own hypocrisy.

and

(b) You've just MADE UP A FACT that I said this quote of yours included lies and made up facts. Or to put it another way, you lied. Not got a strong grasp of irony, do you?

There are plenty of examples of your other ignoring/editing/making up of facts around these forums, but I think my point has already been made, BY YOU, that anything you say is basically suspect.

Also, you've still not responded as to exactly WHY I'm wrong when I say Mr Whitcut's involvement with the Bulls was either harmful while he was in charge, harmful to getting new owners or continues to be harmful to the future of the club.

You could have just posted that you refuse to admit you were wrong and I was right......other posts have no place in the debate regarding mr whitcut...... Who has turned out to be as dodgy as I said.

But you've still not said what is wrong with my contention that Mr Whitcut has not nor is a bad influence on the Bulls either during his time in charge or so far with the new board/owners he helped bring in. You just keep saying I'm wrong, but don't explain why. If I am wrong, then please explain it to me. I'm big enough to admit when I'm wrong. But so far you've not shown how I AM wrong with that contention.

Oh, and YOU brought up other posts. Sorry if I've shown you to be someone who makes up facts or just plain lies, but the fault is yours not mine.

Why is it you continue to ignore my first post on the matter...what I posted before you decided to accuse me of agendas, anti-Bradford campaigns and shooting Kennedy?

Here it is again...with no mention of the "influence" of Whitcut on Bradford Bulls....just a questioning of his fit and proper standing to run a SL club with the proof as to why questions should have been asked......



why are you terrified to admit I was spot on about this guy whilst you were wrong?

Still not said why I'm wrong by saying "Mr Whitcut was not or hasn't been detrimental to the Bulls".

Tbh, you're not going to come up with anything because you have nothing other than your rather childish "I'm right, you're wrong nah nah na na na na" attitude.

I like how you try to once again try and deflect from what I've asked you to prove by saying I'm not allowed to bring up old posts, even though you do that. Then make up more facts and try and brush over it when I call you on.

You went out of your way to put forward an anti-Bradford bias in your posts. I called you on your ignoring of facts that didn't fit your bias and you continued to ignore the facts that don't match up with your argument. You then consistently made up facts to back up your argument or belittle anyone who doesn't immediately say "Wow, you're the most knowledgable poster ever, I shall stop thinking for myself and just believe anything you make up"

Oh and you had a real hissy fit when I used your own argument and use of that website against a London director. Didn't like the tables being turned, did you?

that's not the point under debate.......you said I was wrong about his fit and proper standing to run the bulls....I wasn't.

Seriously, no-one gives a f*ck.

I did a few pages back.