Blame Game begins

[malc d]

StuartO - 2020-04-26 1:08 PM

 

Getting back to the OP topic, we seem to be innundated at the momment with what boil down to rival journalistic and scientific opinion about how to handle the virus outbreak - which from my viewpoint are really unwelcome.

 

 

You are in danger of sounding like Donald Trump, Stuart.

 

In our version of Democracy, more than 56% voted for politicians other than the Tories at the last election - so they were not supported by a significant majority.

I think our democracy is working rather well at the moment and the government is being kept on their toes, as they should be.

 

I wouldn't like to see the podiums at the daily briefings displaying the message :

" Stay Home, Protect the NHS, Save Lives, and Shut Up "

 

;-)

[John52]

malc d - 2020-04-26 2:20 PM

 

 

I wouldn't like to see the podiums at the daily briefings displaying the message :

" Stay Home, Protect the NHS, Save Lives, and Shut Up "

 

;-)

Or - That was a Party Political Broadcast on behalf of the Conservative Party

Admittedly I haven't watched them since they were saying BoJo was ready to come out of self isolation - just before he went into Intensive Care.

But I doubt if they have changed.

and suspect they are where Stuart and Funster John are getting their information from

[FunsterJohn]

John52 - 2020-04-26 2:49 PM

 

FunsterJohn - 2020-04-26 11:20 AM

 

 

You haven't lost everything though. You still have your ability to shamelessly lie in order to bolster your stance. Your latest blatant lie is that the PM's advisor is on the SAGE committee. He is not on the committee, any more than the dozen other people are who were invited to attend the meetings to observe proceedings and, if possible, answer questions, when asked by the committee, which often needs to ask the government for procedural advice. This has been made very clear but, as you often do, you choose to ignore the truth.

 

Scientists on UK government’s coronavirus advisory group say Dominic Cummings was an active participant https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/26/attendees-of-sage-coronavirus-meetings-worried-by-presence-of-dominic-cummings

How do you know more than the Scientists who were there *-)

 

Thank you for the link which does nothing to prove your lies that Cummings was a member of the committee.

 

I noted this part of it: 'The reaction from the two Sage attendees contrasts with that of Prof Neil Ferguson, the Imperial College epidemiologist whose models have played a guiding role in the government’s response to Covid-19. He appeared unconcerned when asked, in a video interview, about Cummings attending Sage meetings. “There have been a number of observers at those meetings, who have not interfered with business at all,” he replied.'

 

You should look up the difference between being on a committee and being allowed to attend a committee's meetings as an observer. Committees often invite others because sometimes they have questions to ask. It is also perfectly reasonable that if the government sets up an advisory committee, that it has representatives attending meetings in order to report its finding and answer questions that the committee might have. Finally, there were many others attending as observers but the likes of the Guardian and you will go out of their way to use a perfectly sensible action as some kind of conspiracy.

 

You lied, again.

[Barryd999]

The BBC is now totally towing the Tory line. Running a nice warm cuddly story about Cummings on R4 yesterday. Good timing huh? They must think we are stupid. Oh I forgot, most of the population are.

 

https://www.thecanary.co/opinion/2020/04/25/the-propaganda-the-bbc-just-pushed-out-on-dom-cummings-is-staggering/

[John52]

FunsterJohn - 2020-04-26 3:14 PM

 

 

Thank you for the link which does nothing to prove your lies that Cummings was a member of the committee.

 

 

I did not say Cummings was a member of the committee

You lied, again.

[Bulletguy]

FunsterJohn - 2020-04-26 3:14 PM

 

John52 - 2020-04-26 2:49 PM

 

FunsterJohn - 2020-04-26 11:20 AM

 

 

You haven't lost everything though. You still have your ability to shamelessly lie in order to bolster your stance. Your latest blatant lie is that the PM's advisor is on the SAGE committee. He is not on the committee, any more than the dozen other people are who were invited to attend the meetings to observe proceedings and, if possible, answer questions, when asked by the committee, which often needs to ask the government for procedural advice. This has been made very clear but, as you often do, you choose to ignore the truth.

 

Scientists on UK government’s coronavirus advisory group say Dominic Cummings was an active participant https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/26/attendees-of-sage-coronavirus-meetings-worried-by-presence-of-dominic-cummings

How do you know more than the Scientists who were there *-)

 

Thank you for the link which does nothing to prove your lies that Cummings was a member of the committee.

 

I noted this part of it: 'The reaction from the two Sage attendees contrasts with that of Prof Neil Ferguson, the Imperial College epidemiologist whose models have played a guiding role in the government’s response to Covid-19. He appeared unconcerned when asked, in a video interview, about Cummings attending Sage meetings. “There have been a number of observers at those meetings, who have not interfered with business at all,” he replied.'

 

You should look up the difference between being on a committee and being allowed to attend a committee's meetings as an observer. Committees often invite others because sometimes they have questions to ask. It is also perfectly reasonable that if the government sets up an advisory committee, that it has representatives attending meetings in order to report its finding and answer questions that the committee might have. Finally, there were many others attending as observers but the likes of the Guardian and you will go out of their way to use a perfectly sensible action as some kind of conspiracy.

 

You lied, again.

From the same article two SAGE attendees who were obviously not happy with Cummings involvement;

 

“I have been concerned sometimes that Sage has become too operational, so we’ve ended up looking as though we are making decisions,” one of them said, making clear that Cummings had been involved on those occasions. “It contravenes previous guidelines about how you make sure you get impartial scientific advice going through to politicians, who make the decisions.”

 

Referring to both Cummings and Warner, the Sage attendee added: “When a very senior civil servant or a very well-connected person interrupts, then I don’t think anyone in the room feels the power to stop it. When you get to discussing where advice might be going, there have been occasions where they have been involved, and a couple of times I’ve thought: that’s not what we are supposed to be doing.”

 

A second Sage attendee said Cummings had played an active role at meetings from February onwards. They said they were initially shocked to discover Cummings was taking part in a meeting of supposedly independent scientific experts.

 

If Cummings was merely just 'an observer' as you claim, then what was he doing taking an 'active role' at those meetings?

[John52]

Barryd999 - 2020-04-26 3:30 PM

 

The BBC is now totally towing the Tory line. Running a nice warm cuddly story about Cummings on R4 yesterday. Good timing huh? They must think we are stupid. Oh I forgot, most of the population are.

 

https://www.thecanary.co/opinion/2020/04/25/the-propaganda-the-bbc-just-pushed-out-on-dom-cummings-is-staggering/

 

The BBC has been towing the Establishment line for a long time.

The way they suck up to the Unelected Royal Hangers On is quite disgraceful.

Its been others who exposed them

Like it was others who exposed MPs expense fiddles.

What annoys me most is we have to buy a BBC licence to watch their competitors >:-)

[John52]

Bulletguy - 2020-04-26 4:42 PM

 

FunsterJohn - 2020-04-26 3:14 PM

 

John52 - 2020-04-26 2:49 PM

 

FunsterJohn - 2020-04-26 11:20 AM

 

 

You haven't lost everything though. You still have your ability to shamelessly lie in order to bolster your stance. Your latest blatant lie is that the PM's advisor is on the SAGE committee. He is not on the committee, any more than the dozen other people are who were invited to attend the meetings to observe proceedings and, if possible, answer questions, when asked by the committee, which often needs to ask the government for procedural advice. This has been made very clear but, as you often do, you choose to ignore the truth.

 

Scientists on UK government’s coronavirus advisory group say Dominic Cummings was an active participant https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/26/attendees-of-sage-coronavirus-meetings-worried-by-presence-of-dominic-cummings

How do you know more than the Scientists who were there *-)

 

Thank you for the link which does nothing to prove your lies that Cummings was a member of the committee.

 

I noted this part of it: 'The reaction from the two Sage attendees contrasts with that of Prof Neil Ferguson, the Imperial College epidemiologist whose models have played a guiding role in the government’s response to Covid-19. He appeared unconcerned when asked, in a video interview, about Cummings attending Sage meetings. “There have been a number of observers at those meetings, who have not interfered with business at all,” he replied.'

 

You should look up the difference between being on a committee and being allowed to attend a committee's meetings as an observer. Committees often invite others because sometimes they have questions to ask. It is also perfectly reasonable that if the government sets up an advisory committee, that it has representatives attending meetings in order to report its finding and answer questions that the committee might have. Finally, there were many others attending as observers but the likes of the Guardian and you will go out of their way to use a perfectly sensible action as some kind of conspiracy.

 

You lied, again.

From the same article two SAGE attendees who were obviously not happy with Cummings involvement;

 

“I have been concerned sometimes that Sage has become too operational, so we’ve ended up looking as though we are making decisions,” one of them said, making clear that Cummings had been involved on those occasions. “It contravenes previous guidelines about how you make sure you get impartial scientific advice going through to politicians, who make the decisions.”

 

Referring to both Cummings and Warner, the Sage attendee added: “When a very senior civil servant or a very well-connected person interrupts, then I don’t think anyone in the room feels the power to stop it. When you get to discussing where advice might be going, there have been occasions where they have been involved, and a couple of times I’ve thought: that’s not what we are supposed to be doing.”

 

A second Sage attendee said Cummings had played an active role at meetings from February onwards. They said they were initially shocked to discover Cummings was taking part in a meeting of supposedly independent scientific experts.

 

If Cummings was merely just 'an observer' as you claim, then what was he doing taking an 'active role' at those meetings?

 

Well I would have pointed that out myself, but thought it a bit much for Funster John to take in, so stuck to the one-liner :-S

[FunsterJohn]

John52 - 2020-04-26 5:36 PM

 

FunsterJohn - 2020-04-26 3:14 PM

 

 

Thank you for the link which does nothing to prove your lies that Cummings was a member of the committee.

 

 

I did not say Cummings was a member of the committee

You lied, again.

 

Ha ha? Squirming again. You said 'Well that would have been better than relying on BoJo's spin doctor's advice who is on the advisory panel'. I know you're not very bright but I thought that even you would know the difference between being on a committee and being a guest at one.

 

You then post as so-called evidence, a Guardian article. Why would you do that unless you were trying to back up your lie? But you were too dim to realise that the article actually said nothing about any of Boris's 'spin doctors' being on the committee.

 

 

[John52]

John52 - 2020-04-26 4:46 PM

 

 

Well I would have pointed that out myself, but thought it a bit much for Funster John to take in, so stuck to the one-liner :-S

 

Told you it would be too much for Funster John to take in :-S

[FunsterJohn]

Bulletguy - 2020-04-26 5:42 PM

 

If Cummings was merely just 'an observer' as you claim, then what was he doing taking an 'active role' at those meetings?

 

You must have missed this: 'The reaction from the two Sage attendees contrasts with that of Prof Neil Ferguson, the Imperial College epidemiologist whose models have played a guiding role in the government’s response to Covid-19. He appeared unconcerned when asked, in a video interview, about Cummings attending Sage meetings. “There have been a number of observers at those meetings, who have not interfered with business at all,” he replied.'

 

'A number of observers who did not interfere with business at all.' Oh dear!

[FunsterJohn]

John52 - 2020-04-26 6:12 PM

 

John52 - 2020-04-26 4:46 PM

 

 

Well I would have pointed that out myself, but thought it a bit much for Funster John to take in, so stuck to the one-liner :-S

 

Told you it would be too much for Funster John to take in :-S

 

'A number of observers who did not interfere with business at all.' Oh dear, what a shame, never mind!

[Bulletguy]

FunsterJohn - 2020-04-26 5:12 PM

 

Bulletguy - 2020-04-26 5:42 PM

 

If Cummings was merely just 'an observer' as you claim, then what was he doing taking an 'active role' at those meetings?

 

You must have missed this: 'The reaction from the two Sage attendees contrasts with that of Prof Neil Ferguson, the Imperial College epidemiologist whose models have played a guiding role in the government’s response to Covid-19. He appeared unconcerned when asked, in a video interview, about Cummings attending Sage meetings. “There have been a number of observers at those meetings, who have NOT INTERFERED with business at all,” he replied.'

 

'A number of observers who did not interfere with business at all.' Oh dear!

No not at all as i read the entire article and part of what you've just quoted contradicts what you previously implied and where Prof. Ferguson states 'there have been a number of observers who have not interfered', he doesn't mention Cummings at all where the two SAGE attendees did. So i will ask you once again, if Cummings was merely just 'an observer' as you claim, then what was he doing taking an 'active role' at those meetings? There's a marked difference between 'observer' and taking an 'active role'.

[FunsterJohn]

Bulletguy - 2020-04-26 6:29 PM

 

FunsterJohn - 2020-04-26 5:12 PM

 

Bulletguy - 2020-04-26 5:42 PM

 

If Cummings was merely just 'an observer' as you claim, then what was he doing taking an 'active role' at those meetings?

 

You must have missed this: 'The reaction from the two Sage attendees contrasts with that of Prof Neil Ferguson, the Imperial College epidemiologist whose models have played a guiding role in the government’s response to Covid-19. He appeared unconcerned when asked, in a video interview, about Cummings attending Sage meetings. “There have been a number of observers at those meetings, who have NOT INTERFERED with business at all,” he replied.'

 

'A number of observers who did not interfere with business at all.' Oh dear!

No not at all as i read the entire article and part of what you've just quoted contradicts what you previously implied and where Prof. Ferguson states 'there have been a number of observers who have not interfered', he doesn't mention Cummings at all where the two SAGE attendees did. So i will ask you once again, if Cummings was merely just 'an observer' as you claim, then what was he doing taking an 'active role' at those meetings? There's a marked difference between 'observer' and taking an 'active role'.

 

Ferguson doesn't mention any of them by name actually. All he makes clear is that the observers did not take an active role. He didn't say 'some of the observers didn't take an active part.' So a couple of Leftie academics don't like Cummings and put their own spin on it. Who cares?

 

However, non of this whataboutery proves that Cummings is 'on' the committee as John52 lied. The committee meetings had several observers and it is right and proper that the government, which commissioned the committee, should have observers.

 

Please provide evidence to prove the lie that Cummings is on the committee and not just an observer.

[Bulletguy]

FunsterJohn - 2020-04-26 5:55 PM

 

Bulletguy - 2020-04-26 6:29 PM

 

FunsterJohn - 2020-04-26 5:12 PM

 

Bulletguy - 2020-04-26 5:42 PM

 

If Cummings was merely just 'an observer' as you claim, then what was he doing taking an 'active role' at those meetings?

 

You must have missed this: 'The reaction from the two Sage attendees contrasts with that of Prof Neil Ferguson, the Imperial College epidemiologist whose models have played a guiding role in the government’s response to Covid-19. He appeared unconcerned when asked, in a video interview, about Cummings attending Sage meetings. “There have been a number of observers at those meetings, who have NOT INTERFERED with business at all,” he replied.'

 

'A number of observers who did not interfere with business at all.' Oh dear!

No not at all as i read the entire article and part of what you've just quoted contradicts what you previously implied and where Prof. Ferguson states 'there have been a number of observers who have not interfered', he doesn't mention Cummings at all where the two SAGE attendees did. So i will ask you once again, if Cummings was merely just 'an observer' as you claim, then what was he doing taking an 'active role' at those meetings? There's a marked difference between 'observer' and taking an 'active role'.

 

Ferguson doesn't mention any of them by name actually. All he makes clear is that the observers did not take an active role. He didn't say 'some of the observers didn't take an active part.' So a couple of Leftie academics don't like Cummings and put their own spin on it. Who cares?

Obviously you do enough to work yourself up into another hissy and how do you know what political preference they have, if any at all? Personally i'd like to believe any 'observers' chosen to attend came from broad political backgrounds where you appear to detest anyone on the left enough to want them totally shut down.

 

Please provide evidence to prove the lie that Cummings is on the committee and not just an observer.

You have exactly the same information form the same article as i do which clearly stated two attendees said 'Cummings took an active role' so that evidence is already there. You prefer to ignore that and failed to provide any evidence that Cummings was merely 'an observer' which you seem to have made up and the reason i asked you, twice now, if Cummings was merely just 'an observer' as you claim, then what was he doing taking an 'active role' at those meetings?

[Birdbrain]

Jeez ... Imagine having such an empty , isolated life

[FunsterJohn]

Bulletguy - 2020-04-26 7:55 PM

 

FunsterJohn - 2020-04-26 5:55 PM

 

Bulletguy - 2020-04-26 6:29 PM

 

FunsterJohn - 2020-04-26 5:12 PM

 

Bulletguy - 2020-04-26 5:42 PM

 

If Cummings was merely just 'an observer' as you claim, then what was he doing taking an 'active role' at those meetings?

 

You must have missed this: 'The reaction from the two Sage attendees contrasts with that of Prof Neil Ferguson, the Imperial College epidemiologist whose models have played a guiding role in the government’s response to Covid-19. He appeared unconcerned when asked, in a video interview, about Cummings attending Sage meetings. “There have been a number of observers at those meetings, who have NOT INTERFERED with business at all,” he replied.'

 

'A number of observers who did not interfere with business at all.' Oh dear!

No not at all as i read the entire article and part of what you've just quoted contradicts what you previously implied and where Prof. Ferguson states 'there have been a number of observers who have not interfered', he doesn't mention Cummings at all where the two SAGE attendees did. So i will ask you once again, if Cummings was merely just 'an observer' as you claim, then what was he doing taking an 'active role' at those meetings? There's a marked difference between 'observer' and taking an 'active role'.

 

Ferguson doesn't mention any of them by name actually. All he makes clear is that the observers did not take an active role. He didn't say 'some of the observers didn't take an active part.' So a couple of Leftie academics don't like Cummings and put their own spin on it. Who cares?

Obviously you do enough to work yourself up into another hissy and how do you know what political preference they have, if any at all? Personally i'd like to believe any 'observers' chosen to attend came from broad political backgrounds where you appear to detest anyone on the left enough to want them totally shut down.

 

Please provide evidence to prove the lie that Cummings is on the committee and not just an observer.

You have exactly the same information form the same article as i do which clearly stated two attendees said 'Cummings took an active role' so that evidence is already there. You prefer to ignore that and failed to provide any evidence that Cummings was merely 'an observer' which you seem to have made up and the reason i asked you, twice now, if Cummings was merely just 'an observer' as you claim, then what was he doing taking an 'active role' at those meetings?

 

So no evidence then that Cummins is actually a member of the committee? I've no doubt that like the other non-members he may have offered and been asked for advice, and why not? It is a panel convened by the government.

 

Cummins is not a member of this committee. He is not on it as John52 claimed. It was a blatant lie designed to suggest that the government is acting improperly. As for me having a 'hissy' when you resort to that kind of playground nonsense it just proves that you're struggling.

 

I'm sure you'll be able to prove that Cummings is an official member of the committee and I await your response. Assuming of course that you are bright enough to understand the difference between a member and an observer and interested party.

 

[John52]

FunsterJohn - 2020-04-26 7:35 PM

 

 

So no evidence then that Cummins is actually a member of the committee?

Have you any evidence then that anyone said Cummings was 'actually a member of the committee' *-)

There is an obvious difference between 'on the committee' (unofficial) and a 'member of the committee' (official) - which I suspect you realise which is why you set up your straw man by changing what I said

[John52]

So what is Cummings doing at these meetings and why is it secret >:-)

' The conventional response of lockdown, mass testing and tracing was snubbed initially in favour of “herd immunity”. This was a costly mistake – making it harder to source chemicals, and personal protective equipment. What was Mr Cummings’ role in discussions about these decisions? The public ought to know.'

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/26/the-guardian-view-on-dominic-cummings-is-he-able-to-give-sage-advice

[John52]

Birdbrain - 2020-04-26 7:00 PM

 

Jeez ... Imagine having such an empty , isolated life

 

Don't know who you are talking about.

But, Seriously, this is the worst crisis I have seen in my life.

So of course I care, and am very worried about it.

Now the Government has missed the chance to avoid it by testing and quarantine at the borders they have 'taken back control' of, and then maximised the damage by waiting till it got established before sourcing the equipment or starting the lockdown, I can't see a way out of it.

Can you?

[FunsterJohn]

John52 - 2020-04-26 8:47 PM

 

FunsterJohn - 2020-04-26 7:35 PM

 

 

So no evidence then that Cummins is actually a member of the committee?

Have you any evidence then that anyone said Cummings was 'actually a member of the committee' *-)

There is an obvious difference between 'on the committee' (unofficial) and a 'member of the committee' (official) - which I suspect you realise which is why you set up your straw man by changing what I said

 

Yes, you said it higher up this thread. Stop squirming, you're embarrassing yourself.

[John52]

FunsterJohn - 2020-04-26 8:15 PM

 

John52 - 2020-04-26 8:47 PM

 

FunsterJohn - 2020-04-26 7:35 PM

 

 

So no evidence then that Cummins is actually a member of the committee?

Have you any evidence then that anyone said Cummings was 'actually a member of the committee' *-)

There is an obvious difference between 'on the committee' (unofficial) and a 'member of the committee' (official) - which I suspect you realise which is why you set up your straw man by changing what I said

 

Yes, you said it higher up this thread. Stop squirming, you're embarrassing yourself.

 

Quote it then

[Bulletguy]

FunsterJohn - 2020-04-26 7:35 PM

 

Bulletguy - 2020-04-26 7:55 PM

 

FunsterJohn - 2020-04-26 5:55 PM

 

Bulletguy - 2020-04-26 6:29 PM

 

FunsterJohn - 2020-04-26 5:12 PM

 

Bulletguy - 2020-04-26 5:42 PM

 

If Cummings was merely just 'an observer' as you claim, then what was he doing taking an 'active role' at those meetings?

 

You must have missed this: 'The reaction from the two Sage attendees contrasts with that of Prof Neil Ferguson, the Imperial College epidemiologist whose models have played a guiding role in the government’s response to Covid-19. He appeared unconcerned when asked, in a video interview, about Cummings attending Sage meetings. “There have been a number of observers at those meetings, who have NOT INTERFERED with business at all,” he replied.'

 

'A number of observers who did not interfere with business at all.' Oh dear!

No not at all as i read the entire article and part of what you've just quoted contradicts what you previously implied and where Prof. Ferguson states 'there have been a number of observers who have not interfered', he doesn't mention Cummings at all where the two SAGE attendees did. So i will ask you once again, if Cummings was merely just 'an observer' as you claim, then what was he doing taking an 'active role' at those meetings? There's a marked difference between 'observer' and taking an 'active role'.

 

Ferguson doesn't mention any of them by name actually. All he makes clear is that the observers did not take an active role. He didn't say 'some of the observers didn't take an active part.' So a couple of Leftie academics don't like Cummings and put their own spin on it. Who cares?

Obviously you do enough to work yourself up into another hissy and how do you know what political preference they have, if any at all? Personally i'd like to believe any 'observers' chosen to attend came from broad political backgrounds where you appear to detest anyone on the left enough to want them totally shut down.

 

Please provide evidence to prove the lie that Cummings is on the committee and not just an observer.

You have exactly the same information form the same article as i do which clearly stated two attendees said 'Cummings took an active role' so that evidence is already there. You prefer to ignore that and failed to provide any evidence that Cummings was merely 'an observer' which you seem to have made up and the reason i asked you, twice now, if Cummings was merely just 'an observer' as you claim, then what was he doing taking an 'active role' at those meetings?

 

So no evidence then that Cummins is actually a member of the committee?

I never said he was a committee member....you've just used this to deflect from that awkward question i put to you three times now which you still refuse to answer. It's obvious you're struggling to answer that very simple question i put to you

 

As for me having a 'hissy' when you resort to that kind of playground nonsense it just proves that you're struggling.

You said in your last post "who cares" as if you were not bothered but you obviously do as you've gone out of your way to duck and dive from answering my question and post a pile of obfuscation

 

I'm sure you'll be able to prove that Cummings is an official member of the committee and I await your response. Assuming of course that you are bright enough to understand the difference between a member and an observer and interested party.

You're being very silly now.....why would i need to prove something i've never claimed?

 

Now.....for the THIRD and final time, if Cummings was merely just 'an observer' as you claim, then what was he doing taking an 'active role' at those meetings as reported by the two attendees? I await your response with interest.

[FunsterJohn]

John52 - 2020-04-26 9:19 PM

 

FunsterJohn - 2020-04-26 8:15 PM

 

John52 - 2020-04-26 8:47 PM

 

FunsterJohn - 2020-04-26 7:35 PM

 

 

So no evidence then that Cummins is actually a member of the committee?

Have you any evidence then that anyone said Cummings was 'actually a member of the committee' *-)

There is an obvious difference between 'on the committee' (unofficial) and a 'member of the committee' (official) - which I suspect you realise which is why you set up your straw man by changing what I said

 

Yes, you said it higher up this thread. Stop squirming, you're embarrassing yourself.

 

Quote it then

 

I already have. Stop being so pathetically childish. You're still embarrassing yourself. You did what you often do, lied and hoped no one would notice. You were found out. Now get over it and grow up.

[FunsterJohn]

Duplicated post.