Mtoto,
I know by the e-mails you used to send , that you do know more than the rest of the VDW people on this board. Have you thought you may be hanging round with the wrong sort of people?

Swish

Johnd

For the record, my relationship with Barney is exactly the same as yours and most other members here is with him - we are simply fellow board members. There are perhaps seven or eight fellow members of this board with whom I've had sustained email exchanges, but Barney isn't one of them.


Swish

You say that "many members" addressed questions to me and "virtually all were ignored". Perhaps you would care to provide evidence of, say, three or four, as with one recent exception I've tried always to be scrupulous about responding to any member who specifically addresses a question to me. (The exception is, since mid July, Epiglotis, as I have a policy of only responding to those I recognise to be fellow human beings.)

I ask for three or four - which obviously wouldn't be difficult for you if the sweep of your allegation were correct - because it is certainly possible that through inadvertence I've missed one or two over 18+ months, but even to find there were one or two would surprise me.

I hope that, on reflection, you will accept that you were over-hasty in that allegation.

Semantics

Why all this pissing about. For VDW purposes this thread is by common consensus kaput. The question then that now intrigues me is: Why do those who sought sanctuary elsewhere frequently return from whence they left?

None of you made any significant contributions on other threads here, so what gives? Dr Fulham tells us the promised land is bereft of humour. Are you also sick of each so soon? Is VDW all you`ve got? Is that why you all (including sickbag) constantly lerk in the gallery?

Even the good doctor who puts so much store by Moaners judgement of character returns to readily converse with those (and usually only those, save one) who are the very object of his derision.

The reply "I was asked a question" will be a bit weak, since some of the questions come from those who parked their tanks on your lawn and in effect ran you out of town.

There is of course an alternative reason, the theory according to johnd, which looks more and more credible each day.

Fulham.

My questions about your explaining your staking and definition of form horse was ignored.(and dont tell me to trawl the thread again please)

And who is this australian that i am sopposed to look for. most times that you do reply to me you seem to imply that i'm thick. so how about helping me out and give me a clear answer.

Also are you Alanb?

Sure Fulham replies to posts, the problem is his replies are pure drivel waffling off at a tangent, I've spent hours posting message after message just to try to get him to address one simple point. In any case a guy who's so thick that he cant see that distances relate to either field or weight obviously has nothing helpful with which to reply.

Clinical VDWology In Decline

Nessie,

I wouldnt worry about being classified as 'thick', its probably better than the 'psychopath' that some of us are classified. Anyone who is less than 100% certain of where the sun shines from, tends to be dismissed as unworthy.

You might like to consider the intelligence of a person who has for years not seen that the pertinance of the 'Ability Rating' and the importance of the 'missing link finishing distances' are axiomatically incompatable and illogical.

But then again that person might have aquired a bit of paper that says he is clever and believe that we are stupid enough to agree.

[This message was edited by john in brasil on September 10, 2003 at 12:39 PM.]

An excellent post, good to see you still take an interest. You may be a little optimistic in expecting an outbreak of truth and open-ness, though, particularly with ' Doctor Spin'.
As with his selections, his every answer is twisted in such a way so that he is seen in the best possible light, and he is never prepared to answer anything with the simple truth.
Does anyone really believe that Barney is not involved in his little club? He has taken us round the houses at least 3 times, without once answering the accusation directly.
The real pity is, he is so practised at this duplicity, that only the sharper members have cottoned onto his true character; the real reason behind the abuse he attracts.
May that realisation one day dawn on the others,

Johnd

"His" little club? If this refers to proprietorship, I've answered that clearly and wholly unambiguously. If you merely mean his in the way you might say "your golf club" or "your football team", no problem.

Earlier you suggested that Barney and I were in "partnership". I'm glad to see that you have revised that to the more realistic speculation that he might be a fellow member of another board.


III

This board, and my interest in racing, have never been solely about VDW. There are, sometimes, other matters of interest to me, and none more so that EC's current material on gambling stables.


Nessie

I'm sorry if I have failed to respond to any question that you've put directly to me. I'm not aware of having done so and, like you, I'm not about to trawl the back pages to check.

There are some questions, including how I believe VDW defined a "form" horse, and about personal details, that I am not prepared to answer, but I'd hope I'd normally have the manners to say so and not merely ignore them.

If you can remember what your question about staking was, and care to re-pose it, I'll gladly answer it.

The "Australian" referred to in my previous post is TC.

Swish,

I will try to answer your points in the order you posted.

1) Why do you think the selections were posted to prove how clever the people were? Could they just have been to show what others thought were VDW type selections. I can remember posting early in the life of this thread about another forum that would not discuss or name the horses. Just cryptic remarks like anyone find the certainty today?
2) I can only agree with you about short prices, for me that holds true in any race.
3) Sorry but I don't agree with you on this. Many answers were posted to many people. I do agree the answers may not have been what they wanted to hear. How does one answer a question like counting form figures is a load of bollocks why do it? The person has already made up their mind, and no answer would be good enough.
4) Again I can't agree. Nessie's question to Fulham remained unanswered because Fulham thinks it is the key. Would you answer such a question, after putting in years of work? Guest answered many questions often repeatedly the same question.
5) I think I asked many questions, often critical. In the main they were answered, that's not to say I except the answers as gospel. You can't make honey by kicking over the beehive, so just keep asking.
6) Is a bit of a problem, because the answer was what you didn't want to hear. I understand how you work, or at least part of it. VDW didn't use low class races, so he wouldn't have been looking at the horse you selected. Many would not have pasted the first basic filters, they were not consistent or improving.
7) I don't really think anyone was shunned, as such. Maybe a few unanswered question. If someone doesn't answer a question I ask I wonder why, was it close to the mark is usually the first thought. Can I ask how people in the pub would react to the verbal abuse dished out? I know for a FACT the idiot would have head shoved straight up his arse while it was being soundly kicked if I ever meet him face to face.
I can only speak for myself I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm trying to learn.

Swish you may not be everyone cup of tea, but you started this thread. For that, I will always thank you.

John,

You really are a prat. Can't you read? Many of the so called deserters came to this forum because it was recommended. I recommend it to more than a few, it failed to live up to my recommendations they left. What's the problem? a noisy few didn't want us, we left, what's the problem? The thread has you to lead it onwards and back to former glory, what's the problem? Wonder if your up to it? ah, found the problem.

Puppet Master & puppet.

I can only speak for myself, I look in on this board because I have a few friends that post here. Have to admit there is less and less of interest here, but there are some interesting ideas. The main reason though is to see if Gummy has any answers, the main one being why is he ignoring this mess. EVEN he must be able to see what happened to the VDW thread. Barney went over the mark on your thread. Barney is dismissed and many other member's joined in the protest. What he did was stupid, but was it any worst than you? I don't think so. Barney had NOTHING to do with the new forum he had to e-mail me to find out where it was.

Stupid if you disagree with Jimmy. Moaner if you disagree with you. I think bloody angry is a better description

Dr Fulham,

As moaner continues to confirm his status as a full time whinger who loses credibility (and hitherto friends) at a worse attrition rate than Tony Blair, so to will your status become characterized as the hapless firefighter.

Take a look back and see when you last didn`t have your back to the wall.

III

"Back to the wall" suggests serious opponents. I see none.

Merely trying to ensure the record is straight when the likes of Johnd and Swish make unfounded allegations.

You miss the point, in order to have one's view opposed it's first necessary to hold a view.

JIB


In Johnd and Swish, people who make unsubstantiated (and unsubstantiatable) allegations.

In you, a pseudo-intellectual who is so serious about betting that he backs and lays on Betfair to stake a pound a time (and gets it wrong in the process).

In Epiglotis - well, I made that clear in a post earlier today.

Hardly serious opponents.

You write " We left, what's the problem"? If that were true, there wouldn't be a problem.
You and your buddies hang around, because you know that without Gummy's thread, yours will die anyway.
To use your own analogy, you steal somebody else's ball, and then keep coming back to see if they will allow you on the pitch.
I see your mendacious mate is still at it, 4 long winded puffs of smoke, without once answering the question.
As Swish said, you should consider your choice of friends very carefully; we can't all be wrong, all of the time.

Just read about the FACT that moaner knows about must be having a heavy period.

You are right, you have no serious opponents on here. They all worry too much about trivialities like truth and integrity.

It's funny that the guy voluntarily puts himself in a position where he has to wait for somebody else to reply to my posts before his pride will allow him to include a comment, a situation that is of no inconvenience to me. I guess this explains why he never could give a sensible reason as to why the Derby was a good betting opportunity, he prefers to make things difficult for himself and, bizarrely advertises these actions. It seems likely that the psychiatric treatment he was receiving was on account of an addiction to failure.