 Richard Garvie Category, Message to Admin |
  |
 Dec 7 2010, 09:10 AM
Post
#61
|
|
|
Advanced Member  Group: Members Posts: 443 Joined: 1-November 10 Member No.: 1,215  |
QUOTE (Iommi @ Dec 6 2010, 05:42 PM)  I don't agree that Richard Garvie subverts threads. A quick browse... http://forum.newburytoday.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=1029 The thread is moving along nicely, discussing the House of Fraser objection to the proposed new anchor store for John Lewis, when RG pipes up... "I find it unbelievable that the Tories kicked off about the Lib Dems subsidising the Cinema by £100k a year, and now they spend £4m on moving an existing store to a new location in town." That wasn't what was being discussed. |
 |
 
|
|
Dec 7 2010, 09:18 AM
Post
#62
|
|
|
Advanced Member Group: Members Posts: 4,327 Joined: 15-May 09 From: Newbury Member No.: 60 |
QUOTE (Rosewinelover @ Dec 6 2010, 09:59 PM) If people aren't moaning about each other their moaning about the posts - where is the love?! I'll show you some loving baby! 
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 7 2010, 09:35 AM
Post
#63
|
|
|
Advanced Member Group: Members Posts: 444 Joined: 25-June 10 From: Newbury Member No.: 966 |
QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Dec 7 2010, 09:18 AM) I'll show you some loving baby! Aww, that's more like it 
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 7 2010, 09:45 AM
Post
#64
|
|
|
Advanced Member Group: Members Posts: 4,138 Joined: 13-May 09 From: Newbury Member No.: 20 |
QUOTE (massifheed @ Dec 7 2010, 09:10 AM) A quick browse... http://forum.newburytoday.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=1029 The thread is moving along nicely, discussing the House of Fraser objection to the proposed new anchor store for John Lewis, when RG pipes up... "I find it unbelievable that the Tories kicked off about the Lib Dems subsidising the Cinema by £100k a year, and now they spend £4m on moving an existing store to a new location in town." That wasn't what was being discussed. The clue is in the word 'discussed'. If people decided to discuss RG's point, that means it was him and others wanted to discuss whatever it is the you objected to. Fair enough he tried to turn it political, but it is partly a political subject anyway, but some of the points he made were wrong, and we had the opportunity to correct him. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 7 2010, 01:17 PM
Post
#65
|
|
|
Advanced Member Group: Members Posts: 1,251 Joined: 15-May 09 Member No.: 61 |
QUOTE (Rosewinelover @ Dec 7 2010, 09:35 AM) Aww, that's more like it Get a room!!! 
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 7 2010, 02:52 PM
Post
#66
|
|
|
Advanced Member Group: Members Posts: 2,974 Joined: 8-September 10 Member No.: 1,076 |
QUOTE (massifheed @ Dec 7 2010, 09:10 AM) A quick browse... http://forum.newburytoday.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=1029 The thread is moving along nicely, discussing the House of Fraser objection to the proposed new anchor store for John Lewis, when RG pipes up... "I find it unbelievable that the Tories kicked off about the Lib Dems subsidising the Cinema by £100k a year, and now they spend £4m on moving an existing store to a new location in town." That wasn't what was being discussed. QUOTE (blackdog @ Dec 4 2010, 03:52 AM) If the project is so dependent on a second 'anchor' store why didn't they design them in to start with? Or do you think that they have been planning this expansion from the start and kept it hidden while the main planning application went through? I would love to see a decent department store like John Lewis in Newbury, but not at the cost of this naff new design that takes up public space and car parking. If only they had used the £4 million to entice JL here rather than Debenhams. Blackdog raised the issue of the £4m payment. I googled it and the story back at the time suggested it was council money. I explained that on the thread, and others linked to stories suggesting the money was paid by SLI. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 7 2010, 06:04 PM
Post
#67
|
|
|
Advanced Member Group: Members Posts: 6,085 Joined: 13-May 09 From: Newbury, Berkshire. Member No.: 33 |
QUOTE (massifheed @ Dec 7 2010, 09:03 AM) Rather than jumping on the bandwaggon, read the OP. No-one is asking for Richard's removal, or stopping him from posting. The OP asked for a seperate section of the forum where he can post his politcally motivated threads, that's all. No-one on here has asked for his removal! Actually if you reread it (and previous posts against him) you will see that the post was being sarcastic. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 9 2010, 11:51 AM
Post
#68
|
|
|
Advanced Member Group: Members Posts: 360 Joined: 13-May 09 Member No.: 31 |
Cor blimey, Mr Garvie was on the local radio news this morning!
He's taking over the world.........! -------------------- Roost
Welcome to the jungle.... |
|
|
|
|
Dec 9 2010, 03:14 PM
Post
#69
|
|
|
Advanced Member Group: Members Posts: 443 Joined: 1-November 10 Member No.: 1,215 |
QUOTE (GMR @ Dec 7 2010, 06:04 PM) Actually if you reread it (and previous posts against him) you will see that the post was being sarcastic. I re-read it... QUOTE (GMR @ Dec 7 2010, 06:04 PM) The trouble is there is always a person out there (or on this forum) that somebody doesn't like. If we all demanded the removal of the person we dislike (or their posts) then I am sure there would be nobody left on here. As the advert says: simples! And it is. If you don't like a certain person or their posts then don't read them, but ask yourself this: do you have a right depriving others on the post you don't like yourself? Me personally; I think there is room for everybody... and don't forget; Hitler died, and because he died we shouldn't try to pay tribute to him by follow his code of practice; condemn, delete or destroy those we don't like, or understand. But I'm not seeing any sarcasm. In fact, as far as the last paragraph goes, I'm not exatcly sure what you are trying to say. |
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 28th April 2024 - 05:13 PM |