Mozart
Are you not the prick that went ballistic when your private info was all over the site at one stage? Now you go on about the issue as if membership privacy is not important.
That was not your attitude when your personal information was published in a forum - now was it?
You still distort things - but then it is habitual with you. I said "he MAY" which is totally different from "he has".
Because your own role on this thread was like Rooinek said "the speed with which Moffie quickly jumped on the bandwagon after that Moolaa twat put up his incredibly flimsy "evidence" (phoning a mate who knew a mate who allegedly knew Tomas) puts him squarely in the skunk category as well."
Moola
You are entitled to believe what you want to believe - but you are an idiot if you support what the poison bitch did in this case. The thing is too stupid to realize that what she has done is unethical and your statement is also hearsay at best.
You cannot demand from anybody to be included on a list of Friends at FB of anybody - especially not of a person whose comments on this Board was always as near as possible to distasteful. For heavens sake - and do it six times - that is totally unethical. To use that as evidence is about as flimsy as anybody can get.
You do not realise that the poison bitch has an idea of superiority and importance and her demands must be adhered to - that really is amazing. Let me add - the ed is not happy what happened here and it is clear that he has the right information on the issue - that is why he was trying to calm things down and get it into perspective. .
Lets rather learn from this episode and deal with rugby issues and not personal issues on this site.
Clever if you think quoting the lickspittle Rooinek impresses me, think again. The fact is you gave up on old Ole, and now you are coming across as indignant with everybody else who had their doubts. Hypocrisy of the highest order from an imbecilic stupid old coot.
moolaa
It is personal when a person start to pester a member with whatever intention away from this site. And the poison bitch did just that. When the member offered to phone her if she provided her phone number and clarify the issue thus - she refused that and kept on screaming about his refusal to allow her onto his FB.
That is the crux of the issue. You do not act like a reasonable person if you want to stamp your feet and scream at somebody the way she did and that on a public forum.
I have very little doubt that Ole Cruz knew exactly what was happening and that it was childish and irresponsible to carry on like that. In any event it is sickening that an episode like this should happen.
Just one question - is that not the type of thing that happened on the BA forum - which caused the forum to be shut down?
moolaa
It is personal when a person start to pester a member with whatever intention away from this site. And the poison bitch did just that. When the member offered to phone her if she provided her phone number and clarify the issue thus - she refused that and kept on screaming about his refusal to allow her onto his FB.
That is the crux of the issue. You do not act like a reasonable person if you want to stamp your feet and scream at somebody the way she did and that on a public forum.
I have very little doubt that Ole Cruz knew exactly what was happening and that it was childish and irresponsible to carry on like that. In any event it is sickening that an episode like this should happen.
Just one question - is that not the type of thing that happened on the BA forum - which caused the forum to be shut down?
Mozart
You know what? I am aware of the fact that the animosity between you and Rooinek stemmed from the episode I referred to and I want to get you to think about that issue from a personal perspective. The quote I made from Rooinek had that intention as well.
Do you ever think before you write. You are the one that started making nasty remarks and agreeing with the filth produced on this site. I wrote that even if there are doubt - the despicable way some members acted in - you included - was not justified.
If I remember correctly I sympathised with you when your personal info was splashed over this site - but now it appears that you are as vicious as he was when the latest episode happened.
You referred to me as "Hypocrisy of the highest order from an imbecilic stupid old coot." That sounds great from an old coot nearly a decade older than me and who tries to run this board with a dictatorial superiority complex. The moment anybody differ from you on any issue you become vicious and - at times I responded in kind -that is where we have had a number of squabbles in the past.
I agree with a member now when he said you are slimy and you distort things beyond recognition. I was making fun of it when the member referred to you as such - and soften the impact - but have to agree with him after all.
I every time tried to smooth things over but it is clear - with you it just is not possible without kowtowing before you in utter obedience and acceptance of your idiotic interpretations of issues. I am accused to be a liar - but you are worse - you try and achieve things through deception. You are the one that came up with praising of Botha after the Murrayfield test and then had to be corrected when the ESPN stats showed otherwise. When I made a mistake recently I apologized and accepted I made a mistake/ When you do - the self-rightedness is nauseating and the deception inevitable. You went on the rampage about the Whitelock try and when you were challenged and caught out you changed your story four times - and the deception still did not work. You may think it did. but I treated it with the distaste it deserves.
What is clear is that we have in your case a devious and viciously old coot of the worst order.
Mozart
I call you elsewhere the resident Herr Goebbels and with reason. I did not lie about De Jongh - I said I made a mstake and apologised for it afterwards.
Lets analyse the Whitelock try episode and your statementsL -
Statement one - Goosen missed the tackle
Statement two - Whitelock ran over Goosen
Statement three - Whitelock ran three meters and plonked down short of the line (no explanation given why he plonked down short of the line)
Statement four - Whitelock did not plonk down he was tackled by Strauss
The video posted by you proved that you were trying your normal deception and it did not work.
Who wrote abut the issue of Ole Crux:-
"Still he seems to have come to terms with this scam of the decade. You may deny it - gut you called it the scam of the decade. What a farce.
How did you work out my age when I was discussing my brother. I sad he died at the age of 49 in 2004 - what does that make me in 2014? It gave away nothing 0 yu do not know what our age differences were in any event,
You are a really remarkable old fool - and distortion and deception is normal with you. Your particulars was not provided on this forum - it was on the other forum where both of us were members. Clever play in words.
Then we have the case of you not being lying. What about the discussion of De Jongh dragging JJ five meters every time he tackled him. When challenged you went quiet on that one - only to repeat it often enough since then - Herr Goebbels at work as per normal.
The ole Cruz X-files
So, it was the guy.
Interesting.