Normally I don't mind you micky as you're quite civil as apologists go but if someone calls me an onanist I'm going to respond in kind.

Really? Perhaps you'd like to show me where?

This forum is now a parody of its former self. Debate and differing opinions from those who still attend results in ridicule and banishment. For all his faults, gutterfax was spot on in his predictions of where we'd end up and the club look to be running his 500 page marketing plan this year.....7 years too late.
All we get now is posts regarding how nice the new shirt is and a glossing over of the fact we are playing out of a banqueting suite.....and whilst I applaud those who still bother, decrying thise who differ in opinion is assuredly de rigure here.

Who called you an onanist?

It was inferred by Plum.

More rank hypocrisy seeing as GF got banned for engaging in sly digs but when apologists resort to the same tactics no-one bats an eye lid.

Ah so you mention tugging but when someone turns it back on you, you assume that it refers to self pleasure. It was you that suggested it referred to onanism when in fact it could merely have been referring to you tugging forelock!
Your constant reference to apologist to anyone that shows any support for the club is persistent sly dig insult.

So back to my original comment give it a rest and stop trolling, it's very dull.

In my view anyone who defends the indefensible (David Hughes) is an apologist.

What's insulting about that?

Unflattering maybe but if the cap fits.

But in your option that is anyone who shows any support for the club, so yes it could be seen as an insult and uncalled for. You don't like DH fine that's your choice and opinion, just because someone continues to show support for the blokes who go out on the park does not mean they are defending anyone, it merely shows they are fans of London broncos rl. Showing yr displeasure at the way the club has and is managed by walking away is one approach and your chosen one, to some of us that's self defeating as in my opinion you become part of the problem. I fail to see how anyone can criticise crowd numbers when they don't a trend themselves.

The only person I've criticised for crowd numbers is David Hughes.

He's the reason one man & his dog turn up.

Although by playing on a park pitch he is at least catering to the canine fraternity.

Seriously, I have no idea what an onanist is, but it is is worse than being called an apologist ?

Yes.

I don't deny anyone the right to disagree with me. However, CN made a statement and I asked him to support it with evidence. Not an unreasonable request in my view.
I'm still waiting for a response, by the way.

I'm asked to justify so much I can't keep up with the workload.

Please refresh my memory.

Although it's funny why the apologists never have to justify backing David Hughes.

Question for you cowgirl, as in your opinion anyone who still shows support for the club in any way is an apologist, which team are you going to switch to when skolars appoint someone you don't approve of?

Plum, I wouldn't worry about it, he called himself it on an assumption that is what someone else meant, putting words in other folks mouths again.

You can support the club & not be an apologist but you can't support David Hughes & not be one.

You're definitely in the latter camp.



Are you an apologist for him now as well?