+- WBAUnofficial (https://wbaunofficial.org.uk)
+-- Forum: WBAUnofficial (https://wbaunofficial.org.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Politics (https://wbaunofficial.org.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Thread: Rachel Thieves? (/showthread.php?tid=39172)
RE: Rachel Thieves? - Jacko - 10-30-2025
(10-30-2025, 02:09 PM)Borin' Baggie Wrote: You literally agreed with the content of what I've quoted in post number 8 as though it vindicated your initial post, said initial post has a link in which talks about the exact thing referenced in the quote about Reeves backing the licensing in Leeds. You're doing it again, you've been caught out with your inane bullshit attempt at shit stirring and are floundering in an attempt to distract from what you were caught out on. Have you found where I got that quote from? It very much vindicates what CC wrote.
As for the Maccabi Tel Aviv thread, I'll let other people read that and come away with their own opinions as to who was "taking shoe".
Shit stirring? Not this White Knight thing again? Last week showed you're not very good at it, but fair play for having another go.
Wrong again. Over and out.
RE: Rachel Thieves? - tHEgLASSdOORS - 10-30-2025
Super shoe, mega flounce.
RE: Rachel Thieves? - Borin' Baggie - 10-30-2025
Ah yes, when someone accuses you of being a WUM it can't be because you've outed yourself. It must be in defence of "someone".
I've no idea who exactly I'm supposed to be "White Knighting" for mind. I think you need to go back to Twitter or 4Chan and find some new buzzwords.
I need only refer you to post 8 where you literally endorsed what I've quoted as well as the subject of the article of what you linked in the first post, trying to move the goalposts and pretend that you're being mis-characterised doesn't really work on a messageboard where what you've written is traceable in the same thread.
When you find where I got that quote from I hope you come back to thread and apologise to me and CC.
RE: Rachel Thieves? - Jacko - 10-30-2025
(10-30-2025, 02:28 PM)Borin' Baggie Wrote: Ah yes, when someone accuses you of being a WUM it can't be because you've outed yourself. It must be in defence of "someone".
I've no idea who exactly I'm supposed to be "White Knighting" for mind. I think you need to go back to Twitter or 4Chan and find some new buzzwords.
I need only refer you to post 8 where you literally endorsed what I've quoted as well as the subject of the article of what you linked in the first post, trying to move the goalposts and pretend that you're being mis-characterised doesn't really work on a messageboard where what you've written is traceable in the same thread.
When you find where I got that quote from I hope you come back to thread and apologise to me and CC.
Last one promise. I know where you got the quote from and Way back machine will show you the article was updated to include your quote after both mine and Corbewrongs post. So I await your apology. Had wondered if you'd get there before I needed to spell it out.
Regards the rest of the nonsense, who am I winding up if not CC with the post you first responded to? Hence White Knight comment after you did similar last week.
Your tunnel vision has once again provided me some amusement today, so cheers for that at least.
(10-30-2025, 02:22 PM)tHEgLASSdOORS Wrote: Super shoe, mega flounce.
Arf. You must be due a username change? This one has been thoroughly discredited, outed as an anti-semite and a thoroughly insincere mental health "advocate"; what little reputation you had left after CF totally shot to bits.
RE: Rachel Thieves? - Borin' Baggie - 10-30-2025
Ah, fair enough. I apologise then.
As for the other stuff, you being a WUM is as transparent as aerogel. You randomly insult people to get a rise, you start obvious bait threads like this and you randomly make contrarian points. You brought up me "White Knighting" in a thread that you replied to me and I didn't reply to anyone else in.
RE: Rachel Thieves? - CIM - 10-30-2025
So all that preaching from Labour about morals and they are as sleazy as the Tories.
RE: Rachel Thieves? - baggy1 - 10-30-2025
Yeah exactly the same, not filling out a form correctly is exactly the same as filling your mates pockets with dodgy contract cash
RE: Rachel Thieves? - Middlemore rd - 10-30-2025
Honestly i dont get the blind backing of these charlatans they dont give a flying fuck about any of us anyone who thinks differently needs to really think about whats infront of them .
RE: Rachel Thieves? - Derek Hardballs - 10-30-2025
(10-30-2025, 04:55 PM)Middlemore rd Wrote: Honestly i dont get the blind backing of these charlatans they dont give a flying fuck about any of us anyone who thinks differently needs to really think about whats infront of them .
… but Nige does?
RE: Rachel Thieves? - CIM - 10-30-2025
(10-30-2025, 04:58 PM)Derek Hardballs Wrote:(10-30-2025, 04:55 PM)Middlemore rd Wrote: Honestly i dont get the blind backing of these charlatans they dont give a flying fuck about any of us anyone who thinks differently needs to really think about whats infront of them .
… but Nige does?
Lots of whataboutery. They are all up to their necks in it.