bluepeter
-
Posts
13 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Excellent. I'm glad this will be resolved, especially as it's being done by someone respected from this forum. I've been trying to find a way to do this completely independently, as I'm not comfortable with the verification coming from me or any staff on RM. It would be too easy for people to dismiss it purely based on where it came from. (Apologies for the mention of another forum, but the intentions are honourable.)
-
You're right, you shouldn't have raised this on here, especially as a hit and run where you say something then when challenged decide it's not for discussion. Back to topic, I hope someone will come along soon to clear up the additional information which leads to the fake email conclusion. If only so I'm not duped in the same way in future.
-
Thanks Greg, appreciated.
-
Could you expand on this please? I'm one of the people who run RM, what drip drip poison do I back?
-
I have no interest in going over old ground about a different forum on here, needless to say we have different views but I have no wish to sully this thread regurgitating old hurt feelings. To return to the topic then, I wonder what further information came to light to lead c1872 to believe the emails were photoshopped? Also, the distraction about the content of the questions is surely just that - a distraction. If the email was dismissed because they believe the questions to be agenda-driven, that would be that. They didn't, there were two emails from c1872 which were contradictory, then the emails were apparently deleted from the server. The person who sent the email was blocked from Twitter 'in error,' then apologised to by c1872 for the emails being sent, then accused of faking the emails. The simple question is what leads c1872 to believe they are fake?
-
It's not relevant. This is fun, we could either carry on or you could explain why you think it's relevant. To be clear, I'm not asking anyone to take my word for anything or believe anything I say. Why would my reliability or otherwise be relevant?
-
While your opinion of me isn't something which keeps me awake at night, I don't believe that's justified. Regardless, my reliability is entirely irrelevant to the post you quoted. There is no subjectivity in it at all, nor is there a need to take my word for anything.
-
I suppose the obvious question is what further information you received to lead to this conclusion?
-
1 - Fair enough. I'll do what I can to ensure your articles are removed if posted, if that is what you want. Do you read RM? 2 - Inter-forum nonsense aside, I am of the opinion that articles written about Rangers by Rangers supporters should be read by as wide an audience as possible. Sorry you don't share that view.
-
Thanks Frankie, appreciate the response.
-
I note you're a site writer. I don't know if you have had any articles from here posted on RM, but we certainly welcome GersNet articles on the site. We like to have all sides debated. I hope you speak for yourself and not GersNet when you posted this.
-
First post - this thread seems as good a place as any. Really appreciate you sharing your info Frankie.