you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Quaker_ 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

No? Nothing? Didn't think so.

[–]Quaker2 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Quaker_ your giving true Quakers a bad name. The OP supplied that much detail, its highly unlikely that its made up. Common Sense... Your the one that started by slinging insults that undermines your credibility. Seems like your the one that's cut the must out of this. If you keep the contradictions and insults going, please reframe from using the Quaker name. This is most disappointing and doesn't reflect the true nature of a Quaker. It really just seems like your trying to misdirect and muddy the water. Your trolling under the guise of someone that knows better & aims higher. Which by the nature of your comments and way you have represented yourself is false.

If your truly after fairness and justice, it means revealing a lot more details in public. If there is hard evidence beside witnesses, I'm sure this will damage more that just Natalie Bird.

This whole thing seems like 1 person causing issues with their inconsiderate poor behaviour of others and then now more poor behaviour buy a Quaker impersonator.

[–]Quaker_ 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't really care about your opinion of me, what I'm giving a bad name to, or my credibility. It really doesn't impact me one way or another. Let's see some real proof other than one side's clumsily assembled rant and have it out. Btw, if you're going to pretend to take the high road and act intelligent, at least use spell check or you know, proof read a bit. Thanks, love.