Brains trust used be be one of Shawn Mcreas sayings when he was at Saints.

Sculthorp, Cunningham, Long and Martyn.

Si, don`t bother, you know how internet forums work.

Its plain for anyone person to see that he couldn`t and can`t back up his claims that i slate Jon Clarke on a weekly basis, i asked him to post the numerous Jon Clarke threads that i`m supposed to have started on a weekly basis yet he can`t even do that, those threads he highlighted are in no way slating Jon Clarke, those opinions he highlighted ar in the context of a differnet thread and he knows that rather than them being a Jon Clarke slating session, he is clutching at straws to back his origninal claim up and he won`t do it because i don`t slate Clarke on a weekly basis..... The clique can be quite entertaining in their own little sad way



Ive actually praised Clarke quite a bit, not as a hooker but i think he could offer us something a lot different at loose forward than what the inconsistent Vinnie Anderson brings to the table, Jon Clarke has a fair kicking game from ball in hand and he is a much better player when he is running on the fringes in open space as per his performes at loose forward in the past.

I've not once questioned the valifity of the content within Robs posts, though for me, his opinons on Clarke are misguided, but it isn't my position to enforce that onto him, nor vice versa.

I told Rob that he criticised Clarke on a very frequent basis on here, which he does. Rob reacted by telling me that I was talking garbage, I quicky cited numerous examples, all the examples contained Robs opinions, in detail, cool, but they're still criticising Clarke, frequently. I could find heaps more, I'm confident of that.

That was my point, end of. If Rob'd have said "Crikey, didn't realise I crticised him that much, yikes.", Cool. But he tried to make out I was a liar, and still is, when sadly, I spend an awful lot of time on here, I read his stuff week in week out, and there's a constant theme, his criticism of Clarke, in all seriousness, I'm not sure he realises how much he does criticise him.

Does Rob contribute to debate on here, undoubtably. I'd never question that, he offers hearty, lengthy opinions. That wasn't & isn't my point.

As for this Clique business, I speak as an individual on here, always have always will, so I wouldn't sort of, how can I put it, want to have to justify other folks posts, y'know ?

Not sure where to go with this Rob, we could go on forever. I never said that you started threads, I said that you bagged Clarke, constantly, which you do. For the sake of both of our sanity, I guess I'll have to leave it, as you'll never admit that you are wrong, and will try & find a loophole & call me a liar time & time again.

A page before, you seemed to want mark_m to be man enough to admit that he was wrong, he was a Cullen apologist for too long, maybe now & again, we're all wrong y'know, if you look from a neutral prospective, I don't think i'm right on here 100% of the time, I probably think am when the keys are going ten to the dozen, but hindsight is cool. If you're willing to accept anything, maybe just have a look, you do never miss an opportunity to bag Clarke, and maybe iin your own time, you might sort of see this.

Handbags

on Sheik Zayed?