stampy wrote:Dogwatcher wrote:maxyoz wrote: Doesn't matter - no point letting the truth get in the way of a good story. As long as everyone is happy having a crack at the Snouts Louts, who are we to argue.
Well, the letter was apparently signed Snout's Louts. It is fair enough that the initial suspicion falls in that direction. Sadly, mud sticks.
well that settles it then dont it? it was signed "snouts louts" guilty as charged, nuk nuk nuk, i might send a card to the gfc before the next bays doggies game and sign it "dogwatcher", does that make you guilty??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? fair dinkum what a crock of s***, i need a drink
Read the whole thread mate. I'm not saying the Snouts are guilty but of course initial suspicion will fall there and mud sticks. And if you did send a card signed "Dogwatcher" - you're right, mud would probably stick in the court of public opinion. Struth you blokes are jumpy about this - my last sentence even shows empathy for the Snouts position.
