Christies Child wrote:I only responded to the highlighted comment that we would receive nothing from the deal due to the lack of appearances. On what was that post based? Certainly not in any newspaper articles that i have read or any postings elsewhere.
As for accusing me of 'speculation' that's suggesting that I [
b]deliberately [b]post information that i know [/b]
to be untrue. If that is what you think then you are most certainly wrong and I resent the implication especially from yourself.

[/b]
http://www.stockportexpress.co.uk/sport ... er_jets_inAbout six posts up.
Neil
You accused other members of 'speculation'. Your definition of 'Speculation' was "Unless you are fully aware of the original deal and all its clauses, then I would suggest that this is speculation on your part"
If that is your personal rule from now on, I will watch with interest.
Posting information that is known to be untrue is not 'speculation' in my book, that is malicious lying. I dont think you do that at all. I do think that you post rumours, innuendo and unfounded speculation. The Peter Davenport rumour above is a prime example of that. An annonymous poster that you dont know from Adam from a Southport site posts it and all of a sudden it is your "understanding".
Maybe a "Think twice before posting" policy could be advised? Less is more. Quality is lost in quantity.
Sorry if I have upset you, not my intention. We have always got on. But as a friend I would say you are in danger of getting lost in your own hype.