Contact London Shock
- Thread starter Mag2.0
- Start date
Got a problem with that????Looking to contact London Shock, however having a wee bit of trouble as some of their members have been banned.
First off, you are correct, it is my site and it is my business but I don't believe I had asked [or anybody else for that matter] for a sarcastic comment that was back-ended on your inquiry.
All you had to do was ask for a contact number...end of, but no, you chose to comment on the end of your post conveniently mentioning they had been banned followed by the sarcastic smiley ... none of that was co-incidence, you elected to set it up that way.
The reason those guys got banned was simple :-
Firstly, phouli and his merry bunch or wannabees had physically threatened a marshal (which by the way is laughable because if you were to put any of them in the ring, they'd sh!t their nappies) and also verbally abused refs at an event I was ultimately responsibly for and also had some hand in putting together.
phouli, after being part of this disgusting display of how to act like pros, then had the fackin cheek to come on my site and start bitching like the little girl he is, and then to cap it all, announces to all and sundry he doesn't want to come any more Fed events !!!!!!!
Wow !!!!
As if anybody would want them after that ...... we don't, that sort of behavior is everything we don't want in the Fed and I doubt any sponsor wants.
And then..... we have people defending them and their actions, and as part of that defence, they attack me on the basis of being 'unprofessional' .... as I mentioned earlier, the moronic irony of these ingrates concentrating on me whilst completely ignoring the behaviour of phouli and the rest of his ant hill mod is absolutely mind blowing.....
And so, if you wanna find out one of their numbers, by all means, do so, but don't ever try to make me look small while you are at it ..... do you understand that??????
Not that i want to get involved with this dispute, however I'm sure Mag was simply saying that he was looking to get contact numbers for shock and advising why he was struggling with this. By the looks of his post he wasn't defending anyone. Thats just from my point of view.
Leach, I wish I had your take on things mate and maybe I am being over-sensitive here but for the life of me, the last part of his inquiry was entirely unnecessary ... this part :- however having a wee bit of trouble as some of their members have been banned.
Things do not write themselves for no reason mate, this was written deliberately and in my opinion, with intent.
His inquiry was no less valid without that last bit, it would have elicited exactly the same response if the last part had been omitted and so why was it there?
It certainly had no function within the remit of the inquiry, but it did have 'intent' and the subject of that last comment reveals that intent ... to me at least.
He wrote those words and them adorned with the sarcastic smiley face which is generally reserved to display disdain ... nice
But as I say, it may well be me over-reacting and I am damned sure Mag will of course deny any such intent but the fact of the matter is, he wrote it. ....
I don't think I am wrong here Leach and I thank you for posting a neutral attempt to saving his ass ... I appreciate the sentiment mate.
Robbo, at no point have i defended London shock's actions nor do i wish to as leach has correctly mentioned.
And to answer your question no, i dont fully understand as the intention of my added emotions was in no way to be-little you. It appears to me that you have jumped to the conclusion that i have in some way "sided" with shock. You are correct, i did choose to structure my post in the way that i did, however the use of my "" May have been that maybe their actions (or more so their reactions on this public forum) deserved such punishment.
I dont claim to know you personally but ive obviously hit a nerve, my comment served no other purpose than a statement which is no secret. My post had no intention of having any hidden meaning or a cheaky rabbit punch.
Perhaps i shall put more thoughts (or less) into my posts in future.
And to answer your question no, i dont fully understand as the intention of my added emotions was in no way to be-little you. It appears to me that you have jumped to the conclusion that i have in some way "sided" with shock. You are correct, i did choose to structure my post in the way that i did, however the use of my "
" May have been that maybe their actions (or more so their reactions on this public forum) deserved such punishment.I dont claim to know you personally but ive obviously hit a nerve, my comment served no other purpose than a statement which is no secret. My post had no intention of having any hidden meaning or a cheaky rabbit punch.
Perhaps i shall put more thoughts (or less) into my posts in future.