Corax
Luke 5:16
Aye. I know you have to watch your back ed, not having a team of lawyers at your beck or owt, but conjecture and discussion ain't slander is it? Not when clearly presented as such?stupid kid said:What exactly are the rules? Can I say what I think is going to be in the papers on Sunday? (IE what I've heard). Might as well just keep schtum because if it's true they'll probably get an injunction. Plus it's Friday already, only a couple of days til the shit (possibly) hits the fan.
And who the fuck sues for being called gay anyway? Oh yeah, that ozzie nob'ead.
It's funny, I always though Le Saux being a trainspotter was a big secret I was in on because my mate's boyf went trainspotting with him (he said, allegedly, blahdefuckingblah). Then a couple of years later, it was being shouted from the rooftops. Then, very quickly, it was made very clear that he was a happily non-trainspotting car-driving man thankyou very much.andy2002 said:Absolutely – Le Saux being termed "gay" because he read the Guardian and had an interest in architecture. It'd be funny if it wasn't so depressing.
My conclusion: Not a fucking clue. Don't care if he's being honest, but if not, he's cheating and lying to his fat controller. Which is a bit crap.
Ed: One word & I edit. Your playground, your rules.

), and it is therefore implicit that I regard my own postings as such and believe they should be regarded thus. But I've made some alterations anyway.
