Fire in Cathedral sq.

_FRANK_

Sully wrote: »

Oh god, I give up. Iv already got the bloody press to confirm that the article which blaimed squatters WAS published. Iv quoted both emails. If your going to ignore it, then ill just stop posting.

Fact: According to Gardai, in an article in the Waterford People (confirmed by the paper today), squatters were present in the house and the fire was started accidently when the squatter light a fire to keep warm. You can not dispute it. Just because another paper left out that one part of the detail doesnt prove anything.

Opinion, based on previous fact: The fire on Cathedral Sq. MAY have been caused by sqautters. Likewise, it MAY have been caused by trouble makers who were witnessed in the area. As of yet, nobody has came out and pointed blame.

End of my part of this conversation, iv proved my point.

The "squatters rights" property laws which people sometimes refer to here, are similar to those in the UK, with the whole 12 years for private property, 30 years for public, "adverse posession" and so on. The reason for this is because these laws were enacted originally when Ireland was a part of the UK, pre-1922. Seriously. I'll post full details again when I have access to them in work. Since independence our laws have diverged considerably from those of the UK, and the emphasis on private property ownership is much stronger here. Quoting adverse posession of a derelict site means nothing - the laws and protections that refer to this action have long been over-ruled by subsequent legislation.

Bottom line is: there are no squatters rights in Ireland. By occupying a premises, you are leaving yourself open to charges of trespass (at best) (no longer a civil offence either), criminal damage, forceful/illegal entry, breaking and entering, etc etc. So every time you enter a building by that dodgy window panel around the back, or the crowbar'd crack in the door frame, thats what you should be aware of.

So how is it that squatters did it when there are no squatters in Ireland?

Sully

:rolleyes: You changed your tune fairly quickly.

Definition of a squatter:

(17) -- one who occupies an uninhabited or abandoned building (Oxford Dict.)

one who settles on the land of another without title or right or without the owner's consent whether in urban or rural areas.

etc.

_FRANK_

Quoting the english dicitonary will not help you.I have you by the balls as of your lack of an answer to the question.:D

Sully

You see, earlier in this thread you were ranting on about squatters having rights and how dare me insult them etc etc. Then the tables turned and I proved my comment to be factual and you tried to say the paper wasnt a good one and couldnt be trusted, then people pointed out you were wrong and now your rambling saying squatters dont have rights and therefore Ireland cant have squatters. However iv proven you wrong again by pointing out what exactly a squatter is - whether it has rights or not is besides the point.

I rest my case.

_FRANK_

Sully wrote: »

You see, earlier in this thread you were ranting on about squatters having rights and how dare me insult them etc etc.

If you read the post i submitted to this thread i said squatters had no rights in this country.not my quote "how dare me insult them etc etc."

Sully wrote: »

Then the tables turned and I proved my comment to be factual and you tried to say the paper wasnt a good one and couldnt be trusted, then people pointed out you were wrong and now your rambling saying squatters dont have rights and therefore Ireland cant have squatters.

you have yet to submitt your proof.

Sully wrote: »

However iv proven you wrong again by pointing out what exactly a squatter is - whether it has rights or not is besides the point.

I rest my case.

You still have not answered the Question....no matter my advice is to save your breath you'll need it to blow up your date later on.:D

Sully

_FRANK_ wrote: »

If you read the post i submitted to this thread i said squatters had no rights in this country.not my quote "how dare me insult them etc etc."

Its not a direct quote, im paraphrasing your previous posts on this topic.

you have yet to submitt your proof.

So a letter from the senior reporter from Waterford People confirming the article was indeed printed, naming the author of the article, is not proof? Get a grip lad, seriously.

You still have not answered the Question....no matter my advice is to save your breath you'll need it to blow up your date later on.:D

See above.

_FRANK_

here's another report from RTE no mention of squatters either...

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0307/waterford.html?rss

Sully

I thought there was no such thing of squatters?!

I dont care what the other reports are omitting. The fact is, one local paper said that the gardai said it was squatters. Thats what I have been saying all along, and I stand by the comment since it was in a bloody public paper.

jdb66

I dont care what the other reports are omitting.

That much is obvious.Clinging on to the one report of the incident that backs up what you're saying.

The fact is, one local paper said that the gardai said it was squatters. Thats what I have been saying all along, and I stand by the comment since it was in a bloody public paper

Do you not find it odd that none of the other local papers make no mention of squatters in their reports?

Do you think that reporters covering the story would be so inept as to leave that important piece of information out of their report?

Sully:
I've put these questions to you hoping for honest straightforward answers without any bull**** or Bertie swerves.

Have read the copy of the E-mail you posted up (is it genuine:D)and before you say it,my understanding of English is fine.

_FRANK_

yes i do wonder how on earth someone is lighting a fire at 2pm to try and stay warm and next thing you know the whole building is gutted.doesn't make sense.

Sully

jdb66 wrote: »

That much is obvious.Clinging on to the one report of the incident that backs up what you're saying.

Well I said all along that I read the report in the paper and yourself and Frank pretty much said I was liying. Iv proven you wrong. The papers may have omitted the facts, I dont know why and it doesnt bother me as not every paper is going to report every detail. National papers usually only give a summary, so I would only consider local reports.

I am satisfied that the gardai confirmed when asked that the fire was caused by squatters. If you want to dispute it, dont take it up with me - take it up with the Gardai / Paper who made the claim. I have proved my claim, and the only way you can dispute it is by getting proof that what the paper said was incorrect. Iv proved my comments to be valid, its up to you and frank to get proof that the comments are invalid and the paper / gardai got it wrong.

Do you not find it odd that none of the other local papers make no mention of squatters in their reports?

No not really. There could be many reasons why the paper didnt report on it. I dont know why, and its to late to go asking them why they didnt. If you want to ask, or speak with the Gardai on the matter to dispute my claims - by all means do.

Do you think that reporters covering the story would be so inept as to leave that important piece of information out of their report?

Well the Waterford People can hardly go quoting gardai if its one big lie to just fill up some space. Someone would take them up on it, or the Gardai would dispute the claim made by the paper. Other reporters just briefly mentioned the fire, and nothing else. The Waterford People expanded and said that Gardai are saying it was squatters.

Sully:
I've put these questions to you hoping for honest straightforward answers without any bull**** or Bertie swerves.

I have been completely honest with you. I made a claim, you asked for the source, I gave it, you disputed the source, I got the source to confirm what I have been saying is correct, and your still disputing it. Iv done my part. My source is a public paper which made the claim. If your saying its wrong, then fair enough - but you cant prove it. I ask of you, to provide proof that squatters did not cause the fire. Otherwise, your calling me a liar and blaming the paper of printing infactual comments. Forget about what other papers omitted, its irrelvant.

Have read the copy of the E-mail you posted up (is it genuine:D)and before you say it,my understanding of English is fine.

Yup its genuine. I emailed the senior reporter. Feel free to contact the paper yourself and check it.

Oh and before you ask about "Why are they holding an investigation then?" - from personal experience, the gardai always seem to do one regardless. For instance, in my experience, the accused admited everything but the Gardai still carried out an investigation. I assume its required to bring charges, and an admission isnt good enough. *shrrugs*

Sully

_FRANK_ wrote: »

yes i do wonder how on earth someone is lighting a fire at 2pm to try and stay warm and next thing you know the whole building is gutted.doesn't make sense.

Its Ireland, its cold all year around. Sitting in a derlict house, probably not much decent clothing on him, in pretty chilly weather - I think its safe to say he lit a fire to warm himself up!

Anyway, why question me? I didnt write the article, I just recalled what I read. When you asked me to prove it, I got the senior reporter to confirm the article was printed as I said - and she did. If you dispute that, take it up with the paper. Its out of my hands. All I did was backup my comment with a source. Based on that, you can see why I made the comment so get of my back and winge to someone else.

_FRANK_

ok so give me the e-mail of your source.....

Sully

The senior reporter is Jennifer Long (jennifer.long[AT]peoplenews[DoT]ie) according to the first page of the Waterford People (at least, I think she is - I dont have a copy to double check). She is the person I asked was the article valid, and I pasted her email above. She said she didnt write the article so I assume to email the author of the article you would email esther.hayde[AT]peoplenews[DOT]ie (Never tried, I assume thats how the email would be)

EDIT: Jennifer Long was a reporter for the News & Star for a good while before moving to this new paper. She would be a well respected journalist in local papers anyway.

jdb66

Well I said all along that I read the report in the paper and yourself and Frank pretty much said I was liying. Iv proven you wrong. The papers may have omitted the facts, I dont know why and it doesnt bother me as not every paper is going to report every detail. National papers usually only give a summary, so I would only consider local reports.

Fair enough.But it's Cathedral Square,i've been on about

I am satisfied that the gardai confirmed when asked that the fire was caused by squatters.
If you want to dispute it, dont take it up with me - take it up with the Gardai / Paper who made the claim.

Take it up with the cops! No thanks.

No not really. There could be many reasons why the paper didnt report on it. I dont know why, and its to late to go asking them why they didnt. If you want to ask, or speak with the Gardai on the matter to dispute my claims - by all means do.

As above,no thanks.Unfortunately i don't have any trust in them anymore (personal reasons) i used to until i saw a side of them firsthand that most people won't let themselves believe exists.Apologies for straying.

Well the Waterford People can hardly go quoting gardai if its one big lie to just fill up some space. Someone would take them up on it, or the Gardai would dispute the claim made by the paper. Other reporters just briefly mentioned the fire, and nothing else. The Waterford People expanded and said that Gardai are saying it was squatters.

Thats fair enough,was just looking for your thoughts on it.

I have been completely honest with you. I made a claim, you asked for the source, I gave it, you disputed the source, I got the source to confirm what I have been saying is correct, and your still disputing it.

I was'nt disputing it,i was just asking you a couple of quetions to get your thoughts on them.That was all,nothing else.

Iv done my part. My source is a public paper which made the claim. If your saying its wrong, then fair enough - but you cant prove it.

I did'nt say it was wrong,i just asked you a few questions about it.

I ask of you, to provide proof that squatters did not cause the fire.

I can't do that as i was not present when the fire occured,just like you were not there (or were you,as you do seem to know an awful lot about it )

Otherwise, your calling me a liar

Hav'nt called you a liar.Querying things you've posted does not mean i've called you a liar.

and blaming the paper of printing infactual comments.

#

I did'nt say they printed "infactual comments" i queried why other papers omitted what i would have thought was important information from their reports and you gave your thoughts on that.No disputes on that one.

Forget about what other papers omitted, its irrelvant.

Was curious about that and was seeing what you thought about it.I'm not however going to be as quick as you are in dismissing it as irrelevant.Would think after a statement from the GS that they would have mentioned it in their report.Just find that a bit odd.

Yup its genuine. I emailed the senior reporter. Feel free to contact the paper yourself and check it.

Relax Sully.It was meant as humour,hence the smiley.:D

Oh and before you ask about "Why are they holding an investigation then?" -

Was'nt going to.

from personal experience, the gardai always seem to do one regardless.

From personal experience no they don't.Please don't give me any guff on this one as you don't know what i'm on about and nor will i be telling you.I mean that in the nicest possible way.It's personal and not for here.

For instance, in my experience, the accused admited everything but the Gardai still carried out an investigation. I assume its required to bring charges, and an admission isnt good enough. *shrrugs*

Why the *shrrugs*?

Sully

jdb66 wrote: »

Fair enough.But it's Cathedral Square,i've been on about

Oh, my bad. I just assumed it could be squatters, scumbags, or anything. There just a few gueses, but im not accusing anyone specifically. I have no idea what happened and by reading the press, I dont think anyone does!

From personal experience no they don't.Please don't give me any guff on this one as you don't know what i'm on about and nor will i be telling you.I mean that in the nicest possible way.It's personal and not for here.

Well, based on my experience they did. Obviously they didnt with you. Im not to sure what the "offical" policy is. Like, the fire by the Glen is under investigation according to news reports yet it was said that squatters caused it. You asked why nobody else mentioned it - to be honest, iv no idea. Its a good question, but I dont think the Waterford People lied or made up storys. Maybe there just better at reporting?! No idea.

Why the *shrrugs*?

Cause I dont know what the offical way of doing things is. Just based on my experience, they continue an investigation. I just assumed it was required.

AdMMM

Sully, your style of arguing a point isn't very impressive. You're coming across as downright arrogant whilst not contributing anything to the discussion other than snide remarks.

If you want to argue about little things such as the spelling of vague then I'd suggest you take it here.

If you want to try argue your point, without coming across as an ass, then I'd recommend you change your style of proving a point. It's nothing but immature and arrogant and it doesn't wash with the vast majority of posters here!

Sully

|.Murderer.| wrote: »

Sully, your style of arguing a point isn't very impressive. You're coming across as downright arrogant whilst not contributing anything to the discussion other than snide remarks.

If you want to argue about little things such as the spelling of vague then I'd suggest you take it here.

If you want to try argue your point, without coming across as an ass, then I'd recommend you change your style of proving a point. It's nothing but immature and arrogant and it doesn't wash with the vast majority of posters here!

I see where your coming from, and I admit to getting ratty in the thread but please don't point the blame solely at me. I made a comment based on what I read in the paper and two posters challenged me for that. They picked on the "little things" and refuse to let it drop even after I explained my comment and backed it up.

Its frustrating going around in circles, my points being ignored and when I prove that what I have been saying all along is actually correct - we repeat the circle of questions again. Its tiresome.

There was no personal abuse, and I think its fair to see why I slightly lost the cool with the posters.

Sully

Anyway moving on. Frank, have you contacted the paper? Im really interested to hear what you found out - its a good question as to why others didnt follow it up.

_FRANK_

well i e-mailed both addresses yesterday morning at 10:19 and i still have got no reply.

CantGetNoSleep

Sully wrote: »

I see where your coming from, and I admit to getting ratty in the thread but please don't point the blame solely at me. I made a comment based on what I read in the paper and two posters challenged me for that. They picked on the "little things" and refuse to let it drop even after I explained my comment and backed it up.

Its frustrating going around in circles, my points being ignored and when I prove that what I have been saying all along is actually correct - we repeat the circle of questions again. Its tiresome.

There was no personal abuse, and I think its fair to see why I slightly lost the cool with the posters.

I would call asking someone can they understand English personal abuse

CantGetNoSleep

_FRANK_ wrote: »

The "squatters rights" property laws which people sometimes refer to here, are similar to those in the UK, with the whole 12 years for private property, 30 years for public, "adverse posession" and so on. The reason for this is because these laws were enacted originally when Ireland was a part of the UK, pre-1922. Seriously. I'll post full details again when I have access to them in work. Since independence our laws have diverged considerably from those of the UK, and the emphasis on private property ownership is much stronger here. Quoting adverse posession of a derelict site means nothing - the laws and protections that refer to this action have long been over-ruled by subsequent legislation.

Bottom line is: there are no squatters rights in Ireland. By occupying a premises, you are leaving yourself open to charges of trespass (at best) (no longer a civil offence either), criminal damage, forceful/illegal entry, breaking and entering, etc etc. So every time you enter a building by that dodgy window panel around the back, or the crowbar'd crack in the door frame, thats what you should be aware of.

So how is it that squatters did it when there are no squatters in Ireland?

"Squatters rights" don't exist in the law of any country, it is more of a newspaper coined term. However adverse possession principles are the same in Ireland as they are in England

These adverse possession laws still exist in Ireland, see the Statute of Limitations 1957
http://www.bailii.org/ie/legis/num_act/1957/zza6y1957.1.html

Land can certainly still be acquired by adverse possession in Ireland. In practice, if an owner has abandoned his property or been dispossessed, it is highly unlikely that charges would be brought except in the case of criminal damage to the property etc

But it is necessary to to balance the rights of "squatters" with the rights of property owners. If a house is empty for a few days, and there are no ways for the law to punish anyone who breaks into it, chaos would follow as people find houses that are empty and break into them then claim the are squatting. At the same time, if land owners are allowed to simply leave buildings become derelict and land become overgrown then society won't receive the same benefit as if squatters are allowed to claim the title to them (which they are) and be responsible for the properties upkeep

In the UK, a recent case in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg argued that the whole idea of adverse possession was against the European Convention of Human Rights, however this was overturned on appeal
See:
http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=822955&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649

Sully

CantGetNoSleep wrote: »

I would call asking someone can they understand English personal abuse

It was not intended as an insult. I honestly didnt think they did, so I asked. I do recall apologising for offending (if any was caused) and moved on.

jdb66

From post #66

Quote:Sully
So... I don't see what's wrong with saying you don't understand simple English. As what I said in past posts was simple english and you didn't seem to understand it..

Quote:My Reply
Whats wrong with it is,it's ignorant and insulting.Par for the course with you though.

To which Sully replied on post #68

Ah so you can judge me based on a very minor comment that one paper publicly stated it was squatter (IIRC) and the other one MAY have been caused by them? Ignorance, my arse!

Apart from the last 3 words in the above quote in response to my reply i will admit that i found it hard to understand what the rest of the above quote had to do with my reply to him.

Can't seem to find a post earlier in the thread where an apology was given to me.TBH at the time i did feel a bit insulted by it,but i am fairly thick skinned so hav'nt dwelt on it.It's not that big a deal.

These type of situations are to be expected on an internet forum and if you can't deal with them,you should'nt be posting on a public forum.

You're forgiven Sully.:)

Sully

you assumed wrong again english is my first language and i'm from chapel lane,ballybricken,waterford city.

Sully wrote:

Fair enough, thought otherwise. Apologises if I offended.

Aye, I issued an apology. Again, apologises if I offended you but I found Frank very hard to understand and it seemed some questions posed by yourselves I already answered yet ye failed to see - hence the comment, which was a genuine question rather then an insult. So, you can expect me to get frustrated!

Its the internet, with common decency. There was no need to go all guns blazing because I assumed squatters caused a fire. Such a minor comment, and the anger levels are high! Honestly, the reaction from the comment was a bit of a shock. You'd swear I was in an interrogation room or something! There was rants, pointless rants, about squatters rights, insulting squatters and the Pat Kenny case etc. I didn't have a copy of the paper handy, it was weeks ago, and accusations were flying around the place. So, I got proof - and Frank does a complete U Turn on his comments earlier about squatters and throws a different rant at me. You kept very quiet and said very little.

I find it very amusing that Murderer can complain about it. Iv seen a lot worse debates on Boards, and he has said nothing at all. Iv seen people being abused several times in the topic and got banned for it, and he has refrained from commenting. The University topics get very heated and the abuse thrown around can be pretty shocking. Here, I have two people arguing that I am wrong, lying (admit it, you said I was bull****ting and was changing the charter to suit myself - that's as good as calling me a lire!), insulting squatters by even suggesting it, etc. I came with proof and nobody said "Fair enough Sully, you were right. I can see why you assumed the fire was now caused by squatters" or even similar!

It was a good craic, the debate was pretty civilised and no there was not personal abuse. It was a stupid argument sparked over something tiny. It doesn't bother me, and I didn't loose any sleep over it. If your offended by being asked if you speak English... well, ill refer you to what you last said:

These type of situations are to be expected on an internet forum and if you can't deal with them,you should'nt be posting on a public forum.

jdb66

Quote:
you assumed wrong again english is my first language and i'm from chapel lane,ballybricken,waterford city.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sully
Fair enough, thought otherwise. Apologises if I offended.

I'm not from Chapel Lane,that was Frank who posted that.

Aye, I issued an apology. Again, apologises if I offended you

Apology accepted,thanks for that.

but I found Frank very hard to understand and it seemed some questions posed by yourselves I already answered yet ye failed to see

And vice verse,but lets not splits hairs and dwell on it.It's dealt with.

hence the comment, which was a genuine question rather then an insult.

I'll take you at your word on that,it's good enough for me.So thats that one done and dusted.

So, you can expect me to get frustrated!

Another one that works both ways.

Its the internet, with common decency.

As it should be.

There was no need to go all guns blazing because I assumed squatters caused a fire.

No guns blazing on my part.I was quiet tame actually.

Such a minor comment, and the anger levels are high!

Minor to you maybe,but,making assumptions like that leave you wide open to comeback.Anger levels? Not me.If your anger levels are high,i doubt it's doing your blood pressure any good.You should get that checked out.

Honestly, the reaction from the comment was a bit of a shock. You'd swear I was in an interrogation room or something!

Why was it a shock?Were you expecting everyone to agree with your comments,just because they were your comments?
When you make assumptions (and / generalise,like you do)then you're leaving yourself wide open for comeback on those comments.

There was rants, pointless rants,

We were telling you that but you would'nt listen to us and just kept doing it:D

So, I got proof - and Frank does a complete U Turn on his comments earlier about squatters and throws a different rant at me. You kept very quiet and said very little.

As Frank is quiet capable of answering for himself,i shall let him do so.As for me,i have other things going on in my life and replied when i did come back on to this forum.I don't spend all of my time on the internet nor do i lose any sleep about whats been posted on it.

I find it very amusing that Murderer can complain about it.

Why? And you've just proved him right in saying that.He just said things as he saw it.If he praised you to the hilt,would your attitude be the same?

Iv seen a lot worse debates on Boards

Agreed.

Iv seen people being abused several times in the topic and got banned for it,

As you've been the only one in this topic thats came near to being abusive to others and were man enough to apologise i don't think you'll be getting banned.If you do get banned,i'll vouch for you and do my utmost to get it overturned.:D:D:D

The University topics get very heated and the abuse thrown around can be pretty shocking.

Well stop doing it and play nicely and you won't find it so shocking.:D

I have two people arguing that I am wrong, lying (admit it, you said I was bull****ting and was changing the charter to suit myself - that's as good as calling me a lire!),

As for calling you a liar,no i did'nt( to use one of your favourite phrases PROVE IT) and as for admitting to saying you were BS'ing,and swerving you're way around the charter to suit yourself,i don't have to as it's in the thread for all to see.So,if you want to think i called you a liar,then do so,thats up to you.

I came with proof and nobody said "Fair enough Sully, you were right. I can see why you assumed the fire was now caused by squatters" or even similar!

Fair enough Sully, you were right. I can see why you assumed the fire was now caused by squatters.The one by the Forum that is.

How's that?

and no there was not personal abuse

Again,i'll take you at your word on that one,so no problem there.

It doesn't bother me, and I didn't loose any sleep over it.

Hmmmm.:D:D:D

If your offended by being asked if you speak English... well, ill refer you to what you last said:


Quote:
These type of situations are to be expected on an internet forum and if you can't deal with them,you should'nt be posting on a public forum.

Translated= i'm going to use this to justify my ignorantly poor attempt at being smart-arsed.Just as i'm trying to be now.

Very poor from you Sully and just shows a lack of maturity on you're part.

=========================================================

Well,that's killed the last hour.:D

Sully

jdb66 wrote: »

No guns blazing on my part.I was quiet tame actually.

Aye ill give you that, you were pretty okay about it.

Minor to you maybe,but,making assumptions like that leave you wide open to comeback.Anger levels? Not me.If your anger levels are high,i doubt it's doing your blood pressure any good.You should get that checked out.

Okay so tell me this, why is it right to assume that scumbags caused the fire? As you said, it leaves you wide open if your making assumptions like that. I do think that anger levels were high, perhaps not by yourself, in the debate. I certinally wasnt anyway.

Why was it a shock?Were you expecting everyone to agree with your comments,just because they were your comments?
When you make assumptions (and / generalise,like you do)then you're leaving yourself wide open for comeback on those comments.

Assumption based on fact. If its happened before, whos to say it may not have happened again? Regardless, if people are going to get upset about me saying squatters did it then why not get upset with merlante for generalising when he said scumbags might have done it?

We were telling you that but you would'nt listen to us and just kept doing it:D

Really? I dont recall that. I just kept responding to questions, explaining why I made the comment and the point was going on about squatters rights, squatters being upset by my comment, unfair, etc. If we are going to get upset about squatters, lets get upset about scumbags. Generlisation and all that!

As Frank is quiet capable of answering for himself,i shall let him do so.As for me,i have other things going on in my life and replied when i did come back on to this forum.I don't spend all of my time on the internet nor do i lose any sleep about whats been posted on it.

Good timing that when I gave proof you went quiet, and even when you did post back nothing was said.

Why? And you've just proved him right in saying that.He just said things as he saw it.If he praised you to the hilt,would your attitude be the same?

Some people will think its silly, I for one, for getting upset by saying that squatters might have caused a fire. Its a very safe assumption to make, and I never stated it as fact. Yet Murderer sits on his hands and says nothing throughout the argument - for or against - until things have died down to give out about me. If hes going to challenge posters for the way they debate, perhaps he should turn to the other debates on the forum and say it to those posters who have personally attacked other posts a lot worse then me asking "Do you understand English?" which was a simple bloody question.

As you've been the only one in this topic thats came near to being abusive to others and were man enough to apologise i don't think you'll be getting banned.If you do get banned,i'll vouch for you and do my utmost to get it overturned.:D:D:D

I wouldnt say I was near to being abusive. But, thanks for your support!

Well stop doing it and play nicely and you won't find it so shocking.:D

No, I dont have any regrets. I stand by my comment: Its safe to assume that the fire MAY have been caused by squatters considering they done it once before. Whos to say it didnt happen again?

As for calling you a liar,no i did'nt( to use one of your favourite phrases PROVE IT) and as for admitting to saying you were BS'ing,and swerving you're way around the charter to suit yourself,i don't have to as it's in the thread for all to see.So,if you want to think i called you a liar,then do so,thats up to you.

You dont have to say "Your a liar". You can imply it in many different ways.

Fair enough Sully, you were right. I can see why you assumed the fire was now caused by squatters.The one by the Forum that is.

How's that?

Suppose it will have to do

Translated= i'm going to use this to justify my ignorantly poor attempt at being smart-arsed.Just as i'm trying to be now.

Interesting translation. It saved me typing it out, when thats what I would have said anyway.

Very poor from you Sully and just shows a lack of maturity on you're part.

Thats an assumption you want to make, by all means go ahead. I stand by the original comment, and I support merlantes comment which nobody was offended by. Some people get upset over such small things!

SUNGOD

has anyone seen my will to live as i do beleive i've lost it

jdb66

I'll deal with this one for now as i'm pressed for time.Will deal with the rest last.

Bet you can't wait.:D

Okay so tell me this, why is it right to assume that scumbags caused the fire? As you said, it leaves you wide open if your making assumptions like that.

I'll post this again for you're benefit.Do try to keep up.

In post #22,on this thread you wrote "It probably is" at Merlantes suggestion that it could have been "Scumbags" who were to blame for starting the fire.

Now HTF can you try and make out that i said it was scumbags that started it?

P-iss poor attempt at spinning that comment around and trying to make out it was me that made it.

This is a prime example of what i meant when i said that you post BS.

Sully

jdb66 wrote: »

I'll deal with this one for now as i'm pressed for time.Will deal with the rest last.

Bet you can't wait.:D



I'll post this again for you're benefit.Do try to keep up.

In post #22,on this thread you wrote "It probably is" at Merlantes suggestion that it could have been "Scumbags" who were to blame for starting the fire.

Now HTF can you try and make out that i said it was scumbags that started it?

P-iss poor attempt at spinning that comment around and trying to make out it was me that made it.

This is a prime example of what i meant when i said that you post BS.

I never once said you made the comment. Merlante made the comment. I asked how you can challange me for putting the squatters in the spotlight and not sucmbags as merlante suggested.