FDR - Signing off

Franklin_Delano_Roosevelt

Well-Known Forumite
Hi all, just popped on to say I don't intend to post on the forum anymore. My reasons are varied but have nothing to do with the Forum itself or any other members.

Best wishes to you all and happy posting!

Cheers - FDR
 

basil

don't mention the blinds
Hi all, just popped on to say I don't intend to post on the forum anymore. My reasons are varied but have nothing to do with the Forum itself or any other members.

Best wishes to you all and happy posting!

Cheers - FDR
blindly what's occurring big fella? Feds finally caught up with you?

"We seek him near

We seek him far

He goes by the name of

FDR"

Adios amigo.........
 

shoes

Well-Known Forumite
Is this the grown up equivalent of closing your facebook account?

WMR only lasted a few weeks :p
 

Withnail

Well-Known Forumite
Is this the grown up equivalent of closing your facebook account?

Could something on Stafford Forum be the 'grown up equivalent' of anything?
hmmm.gif
 

db

#chaplife
Hi all, just popped on to say I don't intend to post on the forum anymore. My reasons are varied but have nothing to do with the Forum itself or any other members.

Best wishes to you all and happy posting!

Cheers - FDR

aw, sorry to hear this - you are a good egg, and one of the few that posted sensible, well-reasoned posts, and got stuck into the more heated debates (read: arguments) without getting silly..
 

db

#chaplife
FDR's profile page said:
Franklin_Delano_Roosevelt was last seen: Sep 12, 2013

seems he's true to his word, thus far :(

come back! we need more of the good 'uns!
 

Withnail

Well-Known Forumite
No it's not.

Yes it is.

At least i have found it to be so. In the absence of further witnesses, it would appear that you lose 2:1.

If you can muster sufficient grounds you could take your case to the Court of Appeal.

Given that you have taken the time, and expended the effort, to 'post' on the aforementioned www.staffordforum.com a 'post' that disavows its addictive nature, the Defense contends that were it not so, the plaintiff would have been otherwise willing to 'Let it Lie'*.

It is the view of the Defense that the very act of 'posting' an opinion on the 'addictive' nature of the forum, however derogatory it may be assumed to be, is a de facto acknowledgement of the very same 'addictive' qualities of the forum that the plaintiff disavows.

* Reeves v. Mortimer 19ninetysomething
 

proactive

Enjoying a drop of red.
Yes it is.

At least i have found it to be so. In the absence of further witnesses, it would appear that you lose 2:1.

If you can muster sufficient grounds you could take your case to the Court of Appeal.

Given that you have taken the time, and expended the effort, to 'post' on the aforementioned www.staffordforum.com a 'post' that disavows its addictive nature, the Defense contends that were it not so, the plaintiff would have been otherwise willing to 'Let it Lie'*.

It is the view of the Defense that the very act of 'posting' an opinion on the 'addictive' nature of the forum, however derogatory it may be assumed to be, is a de facto acknowledgement of the very same 'addictive' qualities of the forum that the plaintiff disavows.

* Reeves v. Mortimer 19ninetysomething
What are you on about?

;)
 
Top