Evening Wraymond,
I am rather surprised by your post above, which starts with
Quote:
Originally Posted by wraymond
At the risk of boring everyone I will answer your query.
........................
|
There was no query in my post that you quoted, towards you or anyone else. My post contained a number of statements but no query. Therefore, there was nothing for you to answer.
I see that your "answer" is in fact a set of statements made of your own accord, which have no relevance to my post. I believe it is customary and basic forum etiquette to quote another's post only if the following content in some way has relevance to the quoted item. In the case of your above post, it does not.
I have seen the method highlighted above often used by unpolished politicians and it never works with audience possessing any degree of intelligence.
In relation to your second point, which I quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by wraymond
..................
In return I ask you to, in future if you ‘quote’ my posts, do not strip them and quote selectively (as you and others have previously done).
........................
|
It is interesting that you yourself had chosen to quote only part of my post earlier in the thread!
I only consider and respond to polite requests.
Your post #90 (quoted below) made a damning allegation about the GOSH charity but then followed it up with the admission that you could be wrong. This is extremely poor and certainly not what one would expect from someone who repeatedly writes that his posts are well considered. When I queried the source of the allegation in my post #91, you stated that you did not have to explain yourself to me. That position I accepted, even though I consider the content of your post to be in extremely poor form considering the young lives to which this charity's work contributes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wraymond
I read that the charity involved has used this personnel agency (to be polite) since circa 2010 but could be wrong. Anyway, they are to refund all donations received from this source back to the first time they used them. That's a lot of money from 2010 they can magically produce from accounts. Charity? How do they manage to keep such (presumably) reserves free from the use for which the donations were intended and are they subject to the Charities Commission periodic audit? Just who is corrupting whom? I suppose we are not to question such luminaries waving flags of virtue from the battlements of hospitals.
|
I think the rather terse tone of your post quoting mine is unwarranted and unnecessary. You practiced the same during the Brexit debate. At the time, I felt bullied by you and one other (who I have previously informed of the same in relation to his behaviour) as did a few others (a number of us shared our experiences in private). You plus the one other seemed unable to recognize that others can reasonably hold differing views to yourselves.
I am sorry to say that I for one find it difficult to be impressed by your pomposity, condescending tones, and what I consider to be a controlling attitude and narcissistic behaviour.