House prices fall £5,000 in year to September

geneer

JonnyBravo wrote: »

I'm sorry you weren't interested in why I had made such an erroneous accusation. I wasn't to know that, but it certainly was an honest apology.
I know this for a fact as I made the apology.
You can only assume it not to have been honest. An incorrect assumption as it happens.

So you claim. But you appear to be quite capable of claiming one thing whilst doing the opposite.

So No, as it happens. I wasn't really that interested in demonstrably passive aggressive attempts to justify your inaccurate accusations.

You might of course refute that characterisation, however I will leave it to any objective observers to review your missives and assess the truth of it themselves.

JonnyBravo wrote: »

I guess you're now accusing me of dishonesty just as I originally had accused you.
Will you be apologising?

I am afraid not.
I was able to prove my honesty with the facts.
You seek to prove yours by assertion. However, given the tone and content of your original response, and the tone and content of your sunsequent responses, It is my opinion that your apology lacked sincerity.

JonnyBravo

geneer wrote: »

I am afraid not.
I was able to prove my honesty with the facts.
You seek to prove yours by assertion. However, given the tone and content of your original response, and the tone and content of your sunsequent responses, It is my opinion that your apology lacked sincerity.

I could have won a fortune betting on some such reply but I fear I would have needed a fortune to start. The odds were unlikely to be long.
Shame.

The good thing is we do agree on something.
I too am happy for my posting record to stand alongside yours and for any interested parties to draw their own conclusions about us.

Pimperne1

geneer wrote: »

So you claim. But you appear to be quite capable of claiming one thing whilst doing the opposite.

So No, as it happens. I wasn't really that interested in demonstrably passive aggressive attempts to justify your inaccurate accusations.

You might of course refute that characterisation, however I will leave it to any objective observers to review your missives and assess the truth of it themselves.



I am afraid not.
I was able to prove my honesty with the facts.
You seek to prove yours by assertion. However, given the tone and content of your original response, and the tone and content of your sunsequent responses, It is my opinion that your apology lacked sincerity.

geneer to Pimperne1:

"banning bulls for being bulls"
Hmmm. Yet your the only bull banned from CC".

If we are considering liars.

Post 25:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3555347

Apology inbound?

geneer

Pimperne1 wrote: »

geneer to Pimperne1:

"banning bulls for being bulls"
Hmmm. Yet your the only bull banned from CC".

If we are considering liars.

Post 25:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3555347

Apology inbound?

Please elaborate.


As a side note, isn't it interesting how many self proclaimed non-argumentative, mature, on topic posters have bee-lined to this thread to contribute, in arbitrary ways, to an off topic discussion they we're not previously involved in.

I wonder who's version of the story that phenomenon supports.

Pimperne1

geneer wrote: »

Please elaborate.


As a side note, isn't it interesting how many self proclaimed non-argumentative, mature, on topic posters have bee-lined to this thread to contribute, in arbitrary ways, to an off topic discussion they we're not previously involved in.

I wonder who's version of the story that phenomenon supports.

Am I the only bull banned from CC?

heathcote123

Pimperne1 wrote: »

Am I the only bull banned from CC?

Well, if I'm a bull I'm kind of banned - I'm on 'mod approval'.

Pimperne1

heathcote123 wrote: »

Well, if I'm a bull I'm kind of banned - I'm on 'mod approval'.

What about PG?

geneer

Pimperne1 wrote: »

What about PG?

PG took voluntary redundancy, as you are well aware.

Something along the lines of "If Pimperne1 is banned can you delete my account too please".

A request which was kindly granted.

Pimperne1

geneer wrote: »

PG took voluntary redundancy, as you are well aware.

Something along the lines of "If Pimperne1 is banned can you delete my account too please".

A request which was kindly granted.

So, is "Yet your the only bull banned from CC" correct then?

Says "Suspended" by PGs name.

Seems closer to a lie than your accusation earlier to another member.

geneer

JonnyBravo wrote: »

I could have won a fortune betting on some such reply but I fear I would have needed a fortune to start. The odds were unlikely to be long.
Shame.

Perhaps you should have spread your bets and had a punt on your own demonstrable compulsion to respond.

Again you're clearly saying one thing, doing another.

JonnyBravo wrote: »

The good thing is we do agree on something.
I too am happy for my posting record to stand alongside yours and for any interested parties to draw their own conclusions about us.

Isn't that interesting. Not sure we agree.
Unlike yourself I see no reason to muddy the waters and am happy for our correspondence within this thread to stand and allow any interested, objective parties to draw their own conclusions about us.

However, I suspect objective parties will have little interest in this discussion.

It seems to me that the "conclusions" of those who have found themselves drawn to this off topic discussion (much like yourself) are all too predictable.