jonah Posted 23 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Last week Duncan posted the following comments about Mary Corbett: "The only person who mentioned Lowe to me, specifically was Mary who told me how she found Lowe so intimidating - sometimes even physically so. She said she felt apprehensive about questioning him in public and appeared frightened. I have since found out why." "I am not going to elaborate on why MC felt threatened by Lowe except to say that's how she told me she felt. I do not have her permission to say anything further. Sorry." I really feel this needs some clarification - "threatened" is a strong word to use in itself, but even more so when talking about being "physically intimidated". Since Duncan leaves it hanging by saying he doesn't have Mary's permission to expand upon it I wanted to know whether he had her permission to make that public in the first place or whether he chose to make it public without her knowledge? I really don't see how anybody can make such a claim like this in public without backing it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonah Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Last week Duncan posted the following comments about Mary Corbett: "The only person who mentioned Lowe to me, specifically was Mary who told me how she found Lowe so intimidating - sometimes even physically so. She said she felt apprehensive about questioning him in public and appeared frightened. I have since found out why." "I am not going to elaborate on why MC felt threatened by Lowe except to say that's how she told me she felt. I do not have her permission to say anything further. Sorry." I really feel this needs some clarification - "threatened" is a strong word to use in itself, but even more so when talking about being "physically intimidated". Since Duncan leaves it hanging by saying he doesn't have Mary's permission to expand upon it I wanted to know whether he had her permission to make that public in the first place or whether he chose to make it public without her knowledge? I really don't see how anybody can make such a claim like this in public without backing it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 JOnah, I would let this lie... I too wondered why Duncan had posted this and asked fro maybe more clarification, but I would suggest that the silence on this is because its best left alone.... nothing good can come of digging here I dont think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 JOnah, I would let this lie... I too wondered why Duncan had posted this and asked fro maybe more clarification, but I would suggest that the silence on this is because its best left alone.... nothing good can come of digging here I dont think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Private Message facility? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Private Message facility? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Majestic Channon Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 JOnah' date=' I would let this lie... I too wondered why Duncan had posted this and asked fro maybe more clarification, but I would suggest that the silence on this is because [b']its best left alone[/b].... nothing good can come of digging here I dont think. Would that be because you believe there's probably something in it? you being prowe lowelife and all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Majestic Channon Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 JOnah' date=' I would let this lie... I too wondered why Duncan had posted this and asked fro maybe more clarification, but I would suggest that the silence on this is because [b']its best left alone[/b].... nothing good can come of digging here I dont think. Would that be because you believe there's probably something in it? you being prowe lowelife and all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INFLUENCED.COM Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 I think the key is Mary Corbett 'felt', people can feel intimidated by an individual in spite of any direct threat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INFLUENCED.COM Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 I think the key is Mary Corbett 'felt', people can feel intimidated by an individual in spite of any direct threat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyFartPants Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 I think the key is Mary Corbett 'felt', people can feel intimidated by an individual in spite of any direct threat So, an individual's feelings of a situation rather than any wrong doing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyFartPants Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 I think the key is Mary Corbett 'felt', people can feel intimidated by an individual in spite of any direct threat So, an individual's feelings of a situation rather than any wrong doing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Would that be because you believe there's probably something in it? you being prowe lowelife and all... Sorry you have misunderstood this. I suggested best left alone, because in effect Duncan reporting his thoughts on this suggested an acusation - I was merely suggesting its wiser not to go down that route, or get involved. I am not pro Lowe, just not anti him to the extent many on here, subtle but important difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Would that be because you believe there's probably something in it? you being prowe lowelife and all... Sorry you have misunderstood this. I suggested best left alone, because in effect Duncan reporting his thoughts on this suggested an acusation - I was merely suggesting its wiser not to go down that route, or get involved. I am not pro Lowe, just not anti him to the extent many on here, subtle but important difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channon's Sideburns Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 (edited) One thing Jonah, Are you going to continue your quest for the truth by also getting the information confirmed regarding Lowe's supposed confrontation with The Echo on Saturday?? Put it this way, and I have no information to go either way on what Duncan has said, I spoke to Mary Corbett during the first march to St Marys and she was very damning in her opinion of Rupert Lowe and said that 'you wouldn't believe some of the things going on at the moment'.. Best left alone though...? Nah. Let's hear all about Rupert and his supposed short temper..it brightens up my Monday to think that he could well be this obnoxious, pompous kn0b that I have always thought he was... Edited 23 February, 2009 by Channon's Sideburns Typo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channon's Sideburns Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 (edited) One thing Jonah, Are you going to continue your quest for the truth by also getting the information confirmed regarding Lowe's supposed confrontation with The Echo on Saturday?? Put it this way, and I have no information to go either way on what Duncan has said, I spoke to Mary Corbett during the first march to St Marys and she was very damning in her opinion of Rupert Lowe and said that 'you wouldn't believe some of the things going on at the moment'.. Best left alone though...? Nah. Let's hear all about Rupert and his supposed short temper..it brightens up my Monday to think that he could well be this obnoxious, pompous kn0b that I have always thought he was... Edited 23 February, 2009 by Channon's Sideburns Typo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 it was the physically threatened that was alarming. I would suggest that there was a bit of authors artistic licence used. But as Fc said its best to let it lie as FF, MC wont wish to make a big deal of it.I just think it shows we have to be very careful how we word some of these things said to us privately Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 it was the physically threatened that was alarming. I would suggest that there was a bit of authors artistic licence used. But as Fc said its best to let it lie as FF, MC wont wish to make a big deal of it.I just think it shows we have to be very careful how we word some of these things said to us privately Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scudamore Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 So, an individual's feelings of a situation rather than any wrong doing? I would probably feel intimidated in the company of Mike Tyson...despite the fact that he would almost certainly be very nice to me...the knowledge that he could smash the sh:t out of me without breaking sweat would intimidate me. Can't say Rupert Lowe would do the same somehow...but it's different strokes for different folks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scudamore Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 So, an individual's feelings of a situation rather than any wrong doing? I would probably feel intimidated in the company of Mike Tyson...despite the fact that he would almost certainly be very nice to me...the knowledge that he could smash the sh:t out of me without breaking sweat would intimidate me. Can't say Rupert Lowe would do the same somehow...but it's different strokes for different folks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Saint Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Last week Duncan posted the following comments about Mary Corbett: I really feel this needs some clarification - "threatened" is a strong word to use in itself, but even more so when talking about being "physically intimidated". Since Duncan leaves it hanging by saying he doesn't have Mary's permission to expand upon it I wanted to know whether he had her permission to make that public in the first place or whether he chose to make it public without her knowledge? I really don't see how anybody can make such a claim like this in public without backing it up. Sorry Mark but I think this was below the belt and an unnecessary attack on Duncan. Or may be you think you can draw the sting. I for one hope Duncan does not reply to this thread. PS. I would have preferred Duncan had not made the comment in the first place but it is done. Let's move on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Saint Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Last week Duncan posted the following comments about Mary Corbett: I really feel this needs some clarification - "threatened" is a strong word to use in itself, but even more so when talking about being "physically intimidated". Since Duncan leaves it hanging by saying he doesn't have Mary's permission to expand upon it I wanted to know whether he had her permission to make that public in the first place or whether he chose to make it public without her knowledge? I really don't see how anybody can make such a claim like this in public without backing it up. Sorry Mark but I think this was below the belt and an unnecessary attack on Duncan. Or may be you think you can draw the sting. I for one hope Duncan does not reply to this thread. PS. I would have preferred Duncan had not made the comment in the first place but it is done. Let's move on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 One thing Jonah, Are you going to continue your quest for the truth by also getting the information confirmed regarding Lowe's supposed confrontation with The Echo on Saturday?? Put it this way, and I have no information to go either way on what Duncan has said, I spoke to Mary Corbett during the first march to St Marys and she was very damning in her opinion of Rupert Lowe and said that 'you wouldn't believe some of the things going on at the moment'.. Best left alone though...? Nah. Let's hear all about Rupert and his supposed short temper..it brightens up my Monday to think that he could well be this obnoxious, pompous kn0b that I have always thought he was... He probably is, but why does that brighten your day? He is currently chairman of our club and you are pleased he might be as bad as you want to believe? For me if he is, its not something I would be pleased about, more embarrassed about to be honest..... BUt this is gossip and hearay at present, yet once again many are ready to lynch without being ion pocession of ANY facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 One thing Jonah, Are you going to continue your quest for the truth by also getting the information confirmed regarding Lowe's supposed confrontation with The Echo on Saturday?? Put it this way, and I have no information to go either way on what Duncan has said, I spoke to Mary Corbett during the first march to St Marys and she was very damning in her opinion of Rupert Lowe and said that 'you wouldn't believe some of the things going on at the moment'.. Best left alone though...? Nah. Let's hear all about Rupert and his supposed short temper..it brightens up my Monday to think that he could well be this obnoxious, pompous kn0b that I have always thought he was... He probably is, but why does that brighten your day? He is currently chairman of our club and you are pleased he might be as bad as you want to believe? For me if he is, its not something I would be pleased about, more embarrassed about to be honest..... BUt this is gossip and hearay at present, yet once again many are ready to lynch without being ion pocession of ANY facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INFLUENCED.COM Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 So, an individual's feelings of a situation rather than any wrong doing? Could be, in the absence of facts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INFLUENCED.COM Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 So, an individual's feelings of a situation rather than any wrong doing? Could be, in the absence of facts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonah Posted 23 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 23 February, 2009 JOnah' date=' I would let this lie... I too wondered why Duncan had posted this and asked fro maybe more clarification, but I would suggest that the silence on this is because its best left alone.... nothing good can come of digging here I dont think.[/quote'] If it is best left alone then to be fair it shouldn't have been said in a public place in the first place. People can interpret those comments in a multitude of ways, from deciding Lowe is a violent deranged thug to feeling it was deliberately leaked in a concerted attack from former board members last week, to thinking it was something which slipped out in a fit of pique and shouldn't have been said in public. However, posting it whilst stating you know more but won't reveal it seems a trifle disingenuous (to use the forum's favourite term), hence I'd like to know who was behind the idea - Mary or Duncan, a major shareholder or the club historian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonah Posted 23 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 23 February, 2009 JOnah' date=' I would let this lie... I too wondered why Duncan had posted this and asked fro maybe more clarification, but I would suggest that the silence on this is because its best left alone.... nothing good can come of digging here I dont think.[/quote'] If it is best left alone then to be fair it shouldn't have been said in a public place in the first place. People can interpret those comments in a multitude of ways, from deciding Lowe is a violent deranged thug to feeling it was deliberately leaked in a concerted attack from former board members last week, to thinking it was something which slipped out in a fit of pique and shouldn't have been said in public. However, posting it whilst stating you know more but won't reveal it seems a trifle disingenuous (to use the forum's favourite term), hence I'd like to know who was behind the idea - Mary or Duncan, a major shareholder or the club historian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyFartPants Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Could be, in the absence of facts All a bit to Heather McCartney for my liking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyFartPants Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Could be, in the absence of facts All a bit to Heather McCartney for my liking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Sorry Mark but I think this was below the belt and an unnecessary attack on Duncan. Or may be you think you can draw the sting. I for one hope Duncan does not reply to this thread. PS. I would have preferred Duncan had not made the comment in the first place but it is done. Let's move onI think Jonah is making a point though.Duncan is judged by fans to be in the know and so if he is going to make a claim like he did that blackens the already tarnished reputation of RL to make a point sound even more sensationalist it should be pointed out as it is morally wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Sorry Mark but I think this was below the belt and an unnecessary attack on Duncan. Or may be you think you can draw the sting. I for one hope Duncan does not reply to this thread. PS. I would have preferred Duncan had not made the comment in the first place but it is done. Let's move onI think Jonah is making a point though.Duncan is judged by fans to be in the know and so if he is going to make a claim like he did that blackens the already tarnished reputation of RL to make a point sound even more sensationalist it should be pointed out as it is morally wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 (edited) OK. Lets look at recent evidence. Lowe likes to give the outward impression of being calm and in control. At the AGM he was still able to keep himself relatively composed despite the abuse levelled at him. He only really admitted one weakness - his wife had tld him not to take the job. However, we have heard a number of examples of Lowe's true temperament from a variety of inner sources over the past few years - all of which seem to add up to give us a picture of a man who is not as his outward persona may seem. The most recent incident of him losing his temper with the senior man from The Echo on Saturday for allowing the paper to publically attack his ineptitude is one example. The detail of how ex managers and players who have connections with the club have mysteriously changed their tune and stories after initially having a pop at Lowe, is also worth noting. The latter could be explain by his insistance of silence clauses on contracts and the threat of legal action, but the intent is the same. Lowe does appear to intimidate those who oppose him. So I would guess MC has been 'threatened' by Lowe's attitude and personality. Another consistent piece of evidence I have noticed in the years I've been posting on this forum and its predecessor is that the more under pressure from general criticism Lowe gets the more inclined he is to intimidate. Banning banners, for example, is another form of intimidation as is importing stewards from elsewhere when the going gets tough. The going is clearly getting tough on Lowe given this weekends example. Last time it got this tough he was forced to go. Time to keep up the pressure to see him out for good. Edited 23 February, 2009 by SaintRobbie spellink Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 (edited) OK. Lets look at recent evidence. Lowe likes to give the outward impression of being calm and in control. At the AGM he was still able to keep himself relatively composed despite the abuse levelled at him. He only really admitted one weakness - his wife had tld him not to take the job. However, we have heard a number of examples of Lowe's true temperament from a variety of inner sources over the past few years - all of which seem to add up to give us a picture of a man who is not as his outward persona may seem. The most recent incident of him losing his temper with the senior man from The Echo on Saturday for allowing the paper to publically attack his ineptitude is one example. The detail of how ex managers and players who have connections with the club have mysteriously changed their tune and stories after initially having a pop at Lowe, is also worth noting. The latter could be explain by his insistance of silence clauses on contracts and the threat of legal action, but the intent is the same. Lowe does appear to intimidate those who oppose him. So I would guess MC has been 'threatened' by Lowe's attitude and personality. Another consistent piece of evidence I have noticed in the years I've been posting on this forum and its predecessor is that the more under pressure from general criticism Lowe gets the more inclined he is to intimidate. Banning banners, for example, is another form of intimidation as is importing stewards from elsewhere when the going gets tough. The going is clearly getting tough on Lowe given this weekends example. Last time it got this tough he was forced to go. Time to keep up the pressure to see him out for good. Edited 23 February, 2009 by SaintRobbie spellink Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channon's Sideburns Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 He probably is' date=' but why does that brighten your day? He is currently chairman of our club and you are pleased he might be as bad as you want to believe? For me if he is, its not something I would be pleased about, more embarrassed about to be honest..... BUt this is gossip and hearay at present, yet once again many are ready to lynch without being ion pocession of ANY facts.[/quote'] Who's lynching who Frank? Who started the thread on this??? Jonah, who regularly on here backs Lowe's views...and who seems intent on having a go at Duncan...not condoning leaving a subject hanging, but this thread was started not about Lowe, or Mary Corbett..but Duncan. If it came out in public that all of this was true, it just might swing the balance towards his removal. It shows his behaviour is not befitting of his status within the PLC. That's good enough for me. Or did the whole Echo argument not happen as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channon's Sideburns Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 He probably is' date=' but why does that brighten your day? He is currently chairman of our club and you are pleased he might be as bad as you want to believe? For me if he is, its not something I would be pleased about, more embarrassed about to be honest..... BUt this is gossip and hearay at present, yet once again many are ready to lynch without being ion pocession of ANY facts.[/quote'] Who's lynching who Frank? Who started the thread on this??? Jonah, who regularly on here backs Lowe's views...and who seems intent on having a go at Duncan...not condoning leaving a subject hanging, but this thread was started not about Lowe, or Mary Corbett..but Duncan. If it came out in public that all of this was true, it just might swing the balance towards his removal. It shows his behaviour is not befitting of his status within the PLC. That's good enough for me. Or did the whole Echo argument not happen as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Sorry you have misunderstood this. I suggested best left alone' date=' because in effect Duncan reporting his thoughts on this suggested an acusation - I was merely suggesting its wiser not to go down that route, or get involved. I am not pro Lowe, just not anti him to the extent many on here, subtle but important difference.[/quote'] FC - sounds as if you're protecting Duncan from Lowe's intimidation/retribution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Sorry you have misunderstood this. I suggested best left alone' date=' because in effect Duncan reporting his thoughts on this suggested an acusation - I was merely suggesting its wiser not to go down that route, or get involved. I am not pro Lowe, just not anti him to the extent many on here, subtle but important difference.[/quote'] FC - sounds as if you're protecting Duncan from Lowe's intimidation/retribution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INFLUENCED.COM Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 All a bit to Heather McCartney for my liking. Without a leg to stand on ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INFLUENCED.COM Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 All a bit to Heather McCartney for my liking. Without a leg to stand on ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 (edited) Posting it whilst stating you know more but won't reveal it Can one assume that you'll be following up the other 438 threads and posts on here over the last 2 years that also qualify under this criteria? Edited 23 February, 2009 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 (edited) Posting it whilst stating you know more but won't reveal it Can one assume that you'll be following up the other 438 threads and posts on here over the last 2 years that also qualify under this criteria? Edited 23 February, 2009 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonah Posted 23 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Are you going to continue your quest for the truth by also getting the information confirmed regarding Lowe's supposed confrontation with The Echo on Saturday?? Yes, I'd love to see and hear exactly what he said - I'm following the other thread. FWIW I expect it will be Lowe choosing the wrong time to (correctly IMO) have a go at the desperate rag that is the Echo - is the Sports Desk still run by that P*mpey fan? As Dave Juson so eloquently put it a few years back, Saints could well do without "the mendacious, sensationalist, anti-club spin". But that is a different pair of subjects, so not on this thread please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonah Posted 23 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Are you going to continue your quest for the truth by also getting the information confirmed regarding Lowe's supposed confrontation with The Echo on Saturday?? Yes, I'd love to see and hear exactly what he said - I'm following the other thread. FWIW I expect it will be Lowe choosing the wrong time to (correctly IMO) have a go at the desperate rag that is the Echo - is the Sports Desk still run by that P*mpey fan? As Dave Juson so eloquently put it a few years back, Saints could well do without "the mendacious, sensationalist, anti-club spin". But that is a different pair of subjects, so not on this thread please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norwaysaint Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 I don't like Lowe, but I hate this attack by insinuation. It's an unsubstantiated hint at something very unpleasant, that was only felt by somebody else. Then it's just left hanging and can't be elaborated on even though it might be nothing. It's all a bit underhand. I could announce that a friend of mine once met Duncan and got the feeling that he might be a sex criminal, but I can't discuss it more as my friend hasn't given me permission, so we'll just leave it at that please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norwaysaint Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 I don't like Lowe, but I hate this attack by insinuation. It's an unsubstantiated hint at something very unpleasant, that was only felt by somebody else. Then it's just left hanging and can't be elaborated on even though it might be nothing. It's all a bit underhand. I could announce that a friend of mine once met Duncan and got the feeling that he might be a sex criminal, but I can't discuss it more as my friend hasn't given me permission, so we'll just leave it at that please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 If it came out in public that all of this was true, it just might swing the balance towards his removal. It shows his behaviour is not befitting of his status within the PLC. that is the point.I myself was very concerned that MC felt physically threatened and stated so.If that is truly the case that RL waves a fist under her chin, then that adds a major question mark of ever giving RL the benifit of the doubt. I would like to quantify what 'physically threatened' would entail. My understanding would be as above, if it was a raising of his voice or being disparaging then that is something different. The phrase makes any defence of the man immoral and so it needs to be clarified Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 If it came out in public that all of this was true, it just might swing the balance towards his removal. It shows his behaviour is not befitting of his status within the PLC. that is the point.I myself was very concerned that MC felt physically threatened and stated so.If that is truly the case that RL waves a fist under her chin, then that adds a major question mark of ever giving RL the benifit of the doubt. I would like to quantify what 'physically threatened' would entail. My understanding would be as above, if it was a raising of his voice or being disparaging then that is something different. The phrase makes any defence of the man immoral and so it needs to be clarified Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowballs2 Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Jonah seems quite capable at stirring the muddy water in defence of his megolomaniac chum Rupert, what benefit do you get out of it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowballs2 Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Jonah seems quite capable at stirring the muddy water in defence of his megolomaniac chum Rupert, what benefit do you get out of it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now