comment by HB Maybe Beale wasn't the mastermind (U21935)
posted 15 minutes ago
I've been in the VAR camp since it's introduction but we are now some years down the line and is it really helping?
It was supposed to improve the game and for some it has but it's also having the opposite effect on many others plus delaying the game.
I wouldn't argue if they wanted to bin it now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm with you on this. I was fully in support of it. The theory of it is perfect. It was supposed to remove the contentious decisions. However, where before we maybe had a few decisions a month that we disagreed on the current trend is a few a week. It has actually made fans angrier with referees nowadays.
I'd be in favour of getting rid of it until they can actually use it properly.
its not enough for a foul but it is enough to be in his space and affect his positioning and decision making.
whether he tries to make the save or not is irrelevant. Hendry is in an offside position and he is affecting play by being one yard and in contact with the player in question.
the ref giving a foul is nonsense, and it whiffs of desperation to keep Spain in it, or having some influence. I cant be to down however cos he was offside.
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 8 minutes ago
its not enough for a foul but it is enough to be in his space and affect his positioning and decision making.
whether he tries to make the save or not is irrelevant. Hendry is in an offside position and he is affecting play by being one yard and in contact with the player in question.
the ref giving a foul is nonsense, and it whiffs of desperation to keep Spain in it, or having some influence. I cant be to down however cos he was offside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If the first part of that was true, there’s not a chance the keeper wouldn’t have claimed for it then.
For me, the keeper just completely misjudged it. The fact he didn’t react also makes me think he knew he made a mug of it.
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 8 minutes ago
its not enough for a foul but it is enough to be in his space and affect his positioning and decision making.
whether he tries to make the save or not is irrelevant. Hendry is in an offside position and he is affecting play by being one yard and in contact with the player in question.
the ref giving a foul is nonsense, and it whiffs of desperation to keep Spain in it, or having some influence. I cant be to down however cos he was offside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If the first part of that was true, there’s not a chance the keeper wouldn’t have claimed for it then.
For me, the keeper just completely misjudged it. The fact he didn’t react also makes me think he knew he made a mug of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
whether a player claims for a foul has zero sway on whether its a foul or not. I say the goal shouldnt count cos of an offside and being in the keepers space, not for a foul.
the keeper did get it wrong, again that doesnt have any bearing on it. the reason is cos Hendry is offside and is affecting the decision of the keeper, what the keeper then does after it is irrelevant.
Aye the keeper didn't even bother claiming. He was well beaten by a fantastic strike from McTominay.
The trouble I have with interfering is, it's completely at the discretion of the referee. We've seen numerous given with genuine interference not the interference of the keepers thinking.
A nonsense decision whichever infraction they gave it for imo but for some clarity we do need to see a transcript of what happened between the VAR room and the referee.
Just hope Norway do us a favour and get a draw, I want to win the group not just qualify which is why the disallowed and second goal for them really fooks me off.
We deserve it for this campaign so far and McTominay should have been eyeing up the golden boot.
the keeper did get it wrong, again that doesnt have any bearing on it. the reason is cos Hendry is offside and is affecting the decision of the keeper, what the keeper then does after it is irrelevant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
He interfered with his decision to stand still and made him stand still.
Got it.
comment by HB Maybe Beale wasn't the mastermind (U21935)
posted 1 minute ago
the keeper did get it wrong, again that doesnt have any bearing on it. the reason is cos Hendry is offside and is affecting the decision of the keeper, what the keeper then does after it is irrelevant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
He interfered with his decision to stand still and made him stand still.
Got it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
again the actions are irrelevant. the guy is offiside, he is in contact with the keeper . of course he is interfering regardless how minor you may think it is he is still interfering. the keeper didnt stand still he took 2/3 steps backwards.
If the keeper got it wrong-then how was Hendry interfering with play? You’re agreeing that him being there made no difference.
You’re almost literally saying that Hendry’s presence had nothing to do with it, and then you’re saying it affected his decision making?!
I don’t think you even know how to square this circle. You’re all over the shop defending a decision that the ref didn’t even know why he was disallowing it.
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted less than a minute ago
If the keeper got it wrong-then how was Hendry interfering with play? You’re agreeing that him being there made no difference.
You’re almost literally saying that Hendry’s presence had nothing to do with it, and then you’re saying it affected his decision making?!
I don’t think you even know how to square this circle. You’re all over the shop defending a decision that the ref didn’t even know why he was disallowing it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
cos the keeper should have just pushed Hendry out the way and try to claim it in the chance that Hendry was onside. He didnt he moved a few steps backwards.
And your reading stuff I aint typing. I never sided with the ref, cos it wasnt a foul on the keeper. Im siding with the goal not standing cos Hendry was offiside and in contact with the keeper.
the decision was wrong (free kick for a foul) it should have been for an offisde. a point I have claimed from the begninning. Hendry is offisde and in contact with the keeper. iv have claime dthe same thing over and over again how is that being all over the place.
If Hendry is in contact with the keeper he is interfering.
you dont agree, thats fine.
If it was the other way around i reckon the ref lets the goal stand.
He was brutal all night and gave them loads and us nothing.
Because you’re agreeing the keeper got it wrong (you’re now saying by not pushing Hendry-I said he completely misjudged it), but that Hendry interferes with play.
I never mentioned you siding with the ref-I said defending a ref that made a decision he didn’t know why he was disallowing it.
The ref wasn’t shown any offside lines. VAR didn’t show that at all. Ultimately, that’s what they are saying.
If the keeper thought he was being denied getting to the ball, he absolutely would have made that known. He clearly didn’t think that was an issue, and neither did he show that he thought he was fouled.
Hendry’s position and movement were irrelevant to the keeper. Just being offside and close to someone doesn’t mean he actually interfered with play. There’s zero evidence to back that up. Everyone that watches football knows what players are like, and that keeper knew he got away with that last night because he didn’t react at all to Hendry being there when the ball went in.
I
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted less than a minute ago
Because you’re agreeing the keeper got it wrong (you’re now saying by not pushing Hendry-I said he completely misjudged it), but that Hendry interferes with play.
I never mentioned you siding with the ref-I said defending a ref that made a decision he didn’t know why he was disallowing it.
The ref wasn’t shown any offside lines. VAR didn’t show that at all. Ultimately, that’s what they are saying.
If the keeper thought he was being denied getting to the ball, he absolutely would have made that known. He clearly didn’t think that was an issue, and neither did he show that he thought he was fouled.
Hendry’s position and movement were irrelevant to the keeper. Just being offside and close to someone doesn’t mean he actually interfered with play. There’s zero evidence to back that up. Everyone that watches football knows what players are like, and that keeper knew he got away with that last night because he didn’t react at all to Hendry being there when the ball went in.
I
----------------------------------------------------------------------
i explained he is interfering with play cos he is in contact with the keeper (doesnt have to be a foul to be interfering) therefore has to be involved in the keepers decision making how can he not be he is in actual contact with him ! I cant see any other reason why the keeper takes three steps backwards across his own line.
Hendry is offisde, is in contact with the keeper, end off discussion as far as Im concerned.
I said I disagree with a foul being given , it should have been for offside so im not fussed. If Hendry was onside and the goal was disallowed then I would be raging but but he wasnt, he was off.
If the ref gave it for offside then fine as he was offside but i stronlgy doubt that is what they did last night.
Thats why we need the audio released as at no point did they look into offside.
I’m comfortable saying that if that decision had been given against rangers, then there would have been fewer folk on here defending it and accepting it.
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 4 minutes ago
I’m comfortable saying that if that decision had been given against rangers, then there would have been fewer folk on here defending it and accepting it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
nonsense , bears are on saying it should have stood. And I support Scotland as much as I do Rangers so there would be no difference to me.
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 4 minutes ago
I’m comfortable saying that if that decision had been given against rangers, then there would have been fewer folk on here defending it and accepting it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
nonsense , bears are on saying it should have stood. And I support Scotland as much as I do Rangers so there would be no difference to me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure Josie, sure.
comment by HB Maybe Beale wasn't the mastermind (U21935)
posted 46 minutes ago
We deserve it for this campaign so far and McTominay should have been eyeing up the golden boot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Keep Holly out of it - she's got her own problems.
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 4 minutes ago
I’m comfortable saying that if that decision had been given against rangers, then there would have been fewer folk on here defending it and accepting it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
nonsense , bears are on saying it should have stood. And I support Scotland as much as I do Rangers so there would be no difference to me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure Josie, sure.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
aye ok, I pure hate scotland so I do.
phanny
go back to accusing that staunch guy of all the same guises you accused me of.
Your issue with reading gets you into arguments you don’t need to.
You’ve taken a general comment and made it about you. It wasn’t.
And I didn’t suggest ever that you were the previous poster Pedro, or his many other guises. Ever.
Glad to clear all that up.
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 1 minute ago
Your issue with reading gets you into arguments you don’t need to.
You’ve taken a general comment and made it about you. It wasn’t.
And I didn’t suggest ever that you were the previous poster Pedro, or his many other guises. Ever.
Glad to clear all that up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
you have accused me of being Laudrup, Zach, Pedro, some guy that owes money and others.
kept asking who I was previously years ago etc.
give it up
I didn’t. You’re clearly not Laudrup (although the spelling is just as atrocious), you’re obviously not Zach (you’re clearly not as smart), and I know you’re not Pedro (his style is obvious-see the new staunchy guy).
The only one I asked about was the one that owes fan £100.
You’re just making stuff up now.
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 1 second ago
I didn’t. You’re clearly not Laudrup (although the spelling is just as atrocious), you’re obviously not Zach (you’re clearly not as smart), and I know you’re not Pedro (his style is obvious-see the new staunchy guy).
The only one I asked about was the one that owes fan £100.
You’re just making stuff up now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
make it interesting then .... If I can find a post from you accusing me of being anyone other than some guy who owes £100 then you delete your account..... If I cant then I will delete mine?
deal .....
2 weeks to go through the posts , if I dont find the posts then I will get admin to delete my account. If I do find them then admin deletes your account......?
I’ve had my account for over 12 years on here now. I’ve never been banned (yet!) or ‘forgotten’ my details or had a previous username.
If you find any posts of mine that suggest you were Laudrup, Zach or Pedro then you’ll get a very humble apology. If you don’t, then I would expect the same if you feel like it.
Betting your ‘account’ is a really stupid suggestion.
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 6 seconds ago
I’ve had my account for over 12 years on here now. I’ve never been banned (yet!) or ‘forgotten’ my details or had a previous username.
If you find any posts of mine that suggest you were Laudrup, Zach or Pedro then you’ll get a very humble apology. If you don’t, then I would expect the same if you feel like it.
Betting your ‘account’ is a really stupid suggestion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
naw then ... your apology means nothing to me.
Sign in if you want to comment
Spain v Scotland live
Page 6 of 8
6 | 7 | 8
posted on 13/10/23
comment by HB Maybe Beale wasn't the mastermind (U21935)
posted 15 minutes ago
I've been in the VAR camp since it's introduction but we are now some years down the line and is it really helping?
It was supposed to improve the game and for some it has but it's also having the opposite effect on many others plus delaying the game.
I wouldn't argue if they wanted to bin it now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm with you on this. I was fully in support of it. The theory of it is perfect. It was supposed to remove the contentious decisions. However, where before we maybe had a few decisions a month that we disagreed on the current trend is a few a week. It has actually made fans angrier with referees nowadays.
I'd be in favour of getting rid of it until they can actually use it properly.
posted on 13/10/23
its not enough for a foul but it is enough to be in his space and affect his positioning and decision making.
whether he tries to make the save or not is irrelevant. Hendry is in an offside position and he is affecting play by being one yard and in contact with the player in question.
the ref giving a foul is nonsense, and it whiffs of desperation to keep Spain in it, or having some influence. I cant be to down however cos he was offside.
posted on 13/10/23
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 8 minutes ago
its not enough for a foul but it is enough to be in his space and affect his positioning and decision making.
whether he tries to make the save or not is irrelevant. Hendry is in an offside position and he is affecting play by being one yard and in contact with the player in question.
the ref giving a foul is nonsense, and it whiffs of desperation to keep Spain in it, or having some influence. I cant be to down however cos he was offside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If the first part of that was true, there’s not a chance the keeper wouldn’t have claimed for it then.
For me, the keeper just completely misjudged it. The fact he didn’t react also makes me think he knew he made a mug of it.
posted on 13/10/23
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 8 minutes ago
its not enough for a foul but it is enough to be in his space and affect his positioning and decision making.
whether he tries to make the save or not is irrelevant. Hendry is in an offside position and he is affecting play by being one yard and in contact with the player in question.
the ref giving a foul is nonsense, and it whiffs of desperation to keep Spain in it, or having some influence. I cant be to down however cos he was offside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If the first part of that was true, there’s not a chance the keeper wouldn’t have claimed for it then.
For me, the keeper just completely misjudged it. The fact he didn’t react also makes me think he knew he made a mug of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
whether a player claims for a foul has zero sway on whether its a foul or not. I say the goal shouldnt count cos of an offside and being in the keepers space, not for a foul.
the keeper did get it wrong, again that doesnt have any bearing on it. the reason is cos Hendry is offside and is affecting the decision of the keeper, what the keeper then does after it is irrelevant.
posted on 13/10/23
Aye the keeper didn't even bother claiming. He was well beaten by a fantastic strike from McTominay.
The trouble I have with interfering is, it's completely at the discretion of the referee. We've seen numerous given with genuine interference not the interference of the keepers thinking.
A nonsense decision whichever infraction they gave it for imo but for some clarity we do need to see a transcript of what happened between the VAR room and the referee.
Just hope Norway do us a favour and get a draw, I want to win the group not just qualify which is why the disallowed and second goal for them really fooks me off.
We deserve it for this campaign so far and McTominay should have been eyeing up the golden boot.
posted on 13/10/23
the keeper did get it wrong, again that doesnt have any bearing on it. the reason is cos Hendry is offside and is affecting the decision of the keeper, what the keeper then does after it is irrelevant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
He interfered with his decision to stand still and made him stand still.
Got it.
posted on 13/10/23
comment by HB Maybe Beale wasn't the mastermind (U21935)
posted 1 minute ago
the keeper did get it wrong, again that doesnt have any bearing on it. the reason is cos Hendry is offside and is affecting the decision of the keeper, what the keeper then does after it is irrelevant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
He interfered with his decision to stand still and made him stand still.
Got it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
again the actions are irrelevant. the guy is offiside, he is in contact with the keeper . of course he is interfering regardless how minor you may think it is he is still interfering. the keeper didnt stand still he took 2/3 steps backwards.
posted on 13/10/23
If the keeper got it wrong-then how was Hendry interfering with play? You’re agreeing that him being there made no difference.
You’re almost literally saying that Hendry’s presence had nothing to do with it, and then you’re saying it affected his decision making?!
I don’t think you even know how to square this circle. You’re all over the shop defending a decision that the ref didn’t even know why he was disallowing it.
posted on 13/10/23
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted less than a minute ago
If the keeper got it wrong-then how was Hendry interfering with play? You’re agreeing that him being there made no difference.
You’re almost literally saying that Hendry’s presence had nothing to do with it, and then you’re saying it affected his decision making?!
I don’t think you even know how to square this circle. You’re all over the shop defending a decision that the ref didn’t even know why he was disallowing it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
cos the keeper should have just pushed Hendry out the way and try to claim it in the chance that Hendry was onside. He didnt he moved a few steps backwards.
And your reading stuff I aint typing. I never sided with the ref, cos it wasnt a foul on the keeper. Im siding with the goal not standing cos Hendry was offiside and in contact with the keeper.
the decision was wrong (free kick for a foul) it should have been for an offisde. a point I have claimed from the begninning. Hendry is offisde and in contact with the keeper. iv have claime dthe same thing over and over again how is that being all over the place.
If Hendry is in contact with the keeper he is interfering.
you dont agree, thats fine.
posted on 13/10/23
If it was the other way around i reckon the ref lets the goal stand.
He was brutal all night and gave them loads and us nothing.
posted on 13/10/23
Because you’re agreeing the keeper got it wrong (you’re now saying by not pushing Hendry-I said he completely misjudged it), but that Hendry interferes with play.
I never mentioned you siding with the ref-I said defending a ref that made a decision he didn’t know why he was disallowing it.
The ref wasn’t shown any offside lines. VAR didn’t show that at all. Ultimately, that’s what they are saying.
If the keeper thought he was being denied getting to the ball, he absolutely would have made that known. He clearly didn’t think that was an issue, and neither did he show that he thought he was fouled.
Hendry’s position and movement were irrelevant to the keeper. Just being offside and close to someone doesn’t mean he actually interfered with play. There’s zero evidence to back that up. Everyone that watches football knows what players are like, and that keeper knew he got away with that last night because he didn’t react at all to Hendry being there when the ball went in.
I
posted on 13/10/23
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted less than a minute ago
Because you’re agreeing the keeper got it wrong (you’re now saying by not pushing Hendry-I said he completely misjudged it), but that Hendry interferes with play.
I never mentioned you siding with the ref-I said defending a ref that made a decision he didn’t know why he was disallowing it.
The ref wasn’t shown any offside lines. VAR didn’t show that at all. Ultimately, that’s what they are saying.
If the keeper thought he was being denied getting to the ball, he absolutely would have made that known. He clearly didn’t think that was an issue, and neither did he show that he thought he was fouled.
Hendry’s position and movement were irrelevant to the keeper. Just being offside and close to someone doesn’t mean he actually interfered with play. There’s zero evidence to back that up. Everyone that watches football knows what players are like, and that keeper knew he got away with that last night because he didn’t react at all to Hendry being there when the ball went in.
I
----------------------------------------------------------------------
i explained he is interfering with play cos he is in contact with the keeper (doesnt have to be a foul to be interfering) therefore has to be involved in the keepers decision making how can he not be he is in actual contact with him ! I cant see any other reason why the keeper takes three steps backwards across his own line.
Hendry is offisde, is in contact with the keeper, end off discussion as far as Im concerned.
I said I disagree with a foul being given , it should have been for offside so im not fussed. If Hendry was onside and the goal was disallowed then I would be raging but but he wasnt, he was off.
posted on 13/10/23
If the ref gave it for offside then fine as he was offside but i stronlgy doubt that is what they did last night.
Thats why we need the audio released as at no point did they look into offside.
posted on 13/10/23
I’m comfortable saying that if that decision had been given against rangers, then there would have been fewer folk on here defending it and accepting it.
posted on 13/10/23
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 4 minutes ago
I’m comfortable saying that if that decision had been given against rangers, then there would have been fewer folk on here defending it and accepting it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
nonsense , bears are on saying it should have stood. And I support Scotland as much as I do Rangers so there would be no difference to me.
posted on 13/10/23
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 4 minutes ago
I’m comfortable saying that if that decision had been given against rangers, then there would have been fewer folk on here defending it and accepting it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
nonsense , bears are on saying it should have stood. And I support Scotland as much as I do Rangers so there would be no difference to me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure Josie, sure.
posted on 13/10/23
comment by HB Maybe Beale wasn't the mastermind (U21935)
posted 46 minutes ago
We deserve it for this campaign so far and McTominay should have been eyeing up the golden boot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Keep Holly out of it - she's got her own problems.
posted on 13/10/23
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 4 minutes ago
I’m comfortable saying that if that decision had been given against rangers, then there would have been fewer folk on here defending it and accepting it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
nonsense , bears are on saying it should have stood. And I support Scotland as much as I do Rangers so there would be no difference to me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure Josie, sure.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
aye ok, I pure hate scotland so I do.
phanny
go back to accusing that staunch guy of all the same guises you accused me of.
posted on 13/10/23
Your issue with reading gets you into arguments you don’t need to.
You’ve taken a general comment and made it about you. It wasn’t.
And I didn’t suggest ever that you were the previous poster Pedro, or his many other guises. Ever.
Glad to clear all that up.
posted on 13/10/23
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 1 minute ago
Your issue with reading gets you into arguments you don’t need to.
You’ve taken a general comment and made it about you. It wasn’t.
And I didn’t suggest ever that you were the previous poster Pedro, or his many other guises. Ever.
Glad to clear all that up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
you have accused me of being Laudrup, Zach, Pedro, some guy that owes money and others.
kept asking who I was previously years ago etc.
give it up
posted on 13/10/23
I didn’t. You’re clearly not Laudrup (although the spelling is just as atrocious), you’re obviously not Zach (you’re clearly not as smart), and I know you’re not Pedro (his style is obvious-see the new staunchy guy).
The only one I asked about was the one that owes fan £100.
You’re just making stuff up now.
posted on 13/10/23
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 1 second ago
I didn’t. You’re clearly not Laudrup (although the spelling is just as atrocious), you’re obviously not Zach (you’re clearly not as smart), and I know you’re not Pedro (his style is obvious-see the new staunchy guy).
The only one I asked about was the one that owes fan £100.
You’re just making stuff up now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
make it interesting then .... If I can find a post from you accusing me of being anyone other than some guy who owes £100 then you delete your account..... If I cant then I will delete mine?
deal .....
posted on 13/10/23
2 weeks to go through the posts , if I dont find the posts then I will get admin to delete my account. If I do find them then admin deletes your account......?
posted on 13/10/23
I’ve had my account for over 12 years on here now. I’ve never been banned (yet!) or ‘forgotten’ my details or had a previous username.
If you find any posts of mine that suggest you were Laudrup, Zach or Pedro then you’ll get a very humble apology. If you don’t, then I would expect the same if you feel like it.
Betting your ‘account’ is a really stupid suggestion.
posted on 13/10/23
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 6 seconds ago
I’ve had my account for over 12 years on here now. I’ve never been banned (yet!) or ‘forgotten’ my details or had a previous username.
If you find any posts of mine that suggest you were Laudrup, Zach or Pedro then you’ll get a very humble apology. If you don’t, then I would expect the same if you feel like it.
Betting your ‘account’ is a really stupid suggestion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
naw then ... your apology means nothing to me.
Page 6 of 8
6 | 7 | 8