General Discussion
Writing about yourself in the first person, eh? If I were a mentalist, I'd think that you meant to post that under a different alias...
If you were going to continue with your casual racism, shouldn't that be "Retter"? Well done to Viaduct, who has obviously got right under someone's skin! I wonder who that is?
Everybody lock your doors, get a gun, protect yourself! Mr. Viaduct is planning to biologically or psychologically engineer two-faced extortionists to make them even more loquacious than they already are! Let me begin by citing a range of examples from the public sphere. For starters, idle hands are the devil's tools. That's why Viaduct spends his leisure time devising ever more overbearing ways ...
Fair enough. I too can't wait for the footy season to start!
Any chance of some evidence to back up your libelous allegations? Also... what "planning approval"? Oh, and what link? I started this thread asking for it to be a civilised debate. Please don't get all shouty and libelous.
I do PJD, but what I don't know is what makes you think that locals don't support the Seasiders. Last season, Dawlish Town had the 9th highest average home attendance in the Western League. Something has obviously cracked off in the past to make you not go along any more, but I'm not aware of what that is. Would be genuinely interested to know though.
What link? You don't really understand the planning process do you? The planners were likely to turn down the proposed development, until they had to consider the very late amendment to the plans by the developers. Hopefully they'll come to the same conclusion that they were expected to in the first place. So what on earth are you blithering about when you say that the planners are justifying ...
Two new signings. To add to the 90% of last season's squad that have re-signed. That, to me, makes a team. Out of interest, why does PJD no longer support the Seasiders?
It would help you, Viaduct, if you were to read the whole of the article...
Have you tried clicking on the links in the original post (which User 4549 no doubt posted in good faith)? It's nowhere near like being the intrusion on people's privacy that the email that User 4549 pasted onto here implies.
