[BLURB]

netcoachnz, on 13 January 2015 - 10:37 AM, said:

Our exact wording to REX was as follows:- ''keep up keeping Blurb honest''


This is hardly encouragement to attack a forum member.

'REX' on 11 January 2015 - 12:36 PM, wrote:

Re: "REX's level of filth".

If that's your opinion netcoachnz, can you stop sending me encouragement private messages to "keep up" then.

Thanks netcoachnz

Visitors and members, including myself, are not fools, nor are we idiots netcoachnz.

[netcoachnz]

BLURB, on 12 January 2015 - 03:07 PM, said:

<snip>

Re: If you will look back on some of Blurb's postings you will find all sorts of profanity and filth, he is simply being hypocritical.

<snip>

All one has to do is use the search feature and you will find Blurb has used the words 'fuck', 'wanker'' and ''arsewipe'' in comments directed at different folk.

[REX]

BLURB, on 13 January 2015 - 10:49 AM, said:

'REX' on 11 January 2015 - 12:36 PM, wrote:

Re: "REX's level of filth".

If that's your opinion netcoachnz, can you stop sending me encouragement private messages to "keep up" then.

Thanks netcoachnz

Visitors and members, including myself, are not fools, nor are we idiots netcoachnz.

You have a very high opinion of yourself BLUDGER/BLURB. Others opinion sways to differ drastically.

I was not supprised you were guoted there instead of quoting what I posted.

netcoachnz It was recent and "unreplied" if that makes it easier for you to find. If you look at the last ten posts I posted before you sent the encouragement you can identify with what sort of support you were wording as "keep up keeping BLURB honest".

Filth huh ? Naa not me.

[REX]

BLURB, on 13 January 2015 - 10:49 AM, said:

'REX' on 11 January 2015 - 12:36 PM, wrote:

Re: "REX's level of filth".

If that's your opinion netcoachnz, can you stop sending me encouragement private messages to "keep up" then.

Thanks netcoachnz

Visitors and members, including myself, are not fools, nor are we idiots netcoachnz.

You have a very high opinion of yourself BLUDGER/BLURB. Others opinion sways to differ drastically.

I was not supprised you were guoted there instead of quoting what I posted.

netcoachnz It was recent and "unreplied" if that makes it easier for you to find. If you look at the last ten posts I posted before you sent the encouragement you can identify with what sort of support you were wording as "keep up keeping BLURB honest".

"filth or whatever its described as"

(oops double post was meant to be edit)

[Alan Thomas]

netcoachnz, on 13 January 2015 - 10:55 AM, said:

All one has to do is use the search feature and you will find Blurb has used the words 'fuck', 'wanker'' and ''arsewipe'' in comments directed at different folk.

This is the type of language that his best friend Kenneth Miller uses who is the moderator to decide that Fran has set up. It is hardly any wonder that the new site has failed already. It seems that they are now trying to destroy this site to bolster the membership to their own site. Obviously we are concerned about the damage that lowlife like these people are doing to this site.

[MINI]

Alan Thomas, on 13 January 2015 - 11:23 AM, said:

This is the type of language that his best friend Kenneth Miller uses who is the moderator to decide that Fran has set up. It is hardly any wonder that the new site has failed already. It seems that they are now trying to destroy this site to bolster the membership to their own site. Obviously we are concerned about the damage that lowlife like these people are doing to this site.

If you are so concerned about 'this lowlife' and the effect it has on this forum, it would be a reason for you naming and defaming all these 'people' in here and on other sites, to try to effectively 'shut them up wouldn't it Mr alan Thomas?

mini

[Alan Thomas]

MINI, on 13 January 2015 - 12:11 PM, said:

If you are so concerned about 'this lowlife' and the effect it has on this forum, it would be a reason for you naming and defaming all these 'people' in here and on other sites, to try to effectively 'shut them up wouldn't it Mr alan Thomas?

mini

No that is you behavour.

I am a good guy, I just address the error.

[MINI]

Alan Thomas, on 13 January 2015 - 12:37 PM, said:

No that is you behavour.

I am a good guy, I just address the error.

You address the error? (as you see anything you want as an 'error'. By makingup 'argy bargy' threads for myself and blurb as soon as you return fromhouse arrest for criminal activity. And by using Lauda finem lies about mini being a fraudster in your own thread, to get back at her. Are these the types of ways you 'address the so-called error' mr Thomas??

More there to print but not just yet!

Mini

[Alan Thomas]

MINI, on 13 January 2015 - 01:46 PM, said:

You address the error? (as you see anything you want as an 'error'. By makingup 'argy bargy' threads for myself and blurb as soon as you return fromhouse arrest for criminal activity. And by using Lauda finem lies about mini being a fraudster in your own thread, to get back at her. Are these the types of ways you 'address the so-called error' mr Thomas??

More there to print but not just yet!

Mini

Like I said mini you seem to just jump from one speculation and assumption to another.
I have never made anything about you or Fran. It seems that you are confusing what other people have said about you both and a mad thing I have something to do with what they are saying.
It seems that you have not actually read the post or any of the information of which you call lies.
Then you assume that I'm trying to get back at you were something which demonstrates a clear paranoia behaviour. Get back at you for what?

When I speak about errors as in the primary issue of this thread I speak about the ACC claiming on their cancellation of my entire claim decision that I was working, telling both the civil and criminal courts that I was working yet when examining what the ACC have relied upon it was discovered that the ACC had no information whatsoever of a single work task activity at any material time. The court gave the ACC until September 2006 to disclose these alleged work task activities at the material times at which time that date came and went without the ACC making any disclosure whatsoever. The ACC informants who the ACC claimed to have relied upon confirmed as well that they had no specific information and just assumed that I was working because I owned a number of companies. The ACC primary informant Ben Masoe have asserted that I was the manager when in fact during the course of examining him under oath he confessed that he had lied to the ACC, criminal court and the civil court, judge Barber that very day and that he was the manager. He went on to acknowledge that he had only assumed I was working because I had a computer in my room. He asserted that he did not know was on ACC and had no knowledge of the ACC requirement for me to produce business plans which necessitated me investigating information, communicating with a variety of people and even conducting meetings with potential business partners which he imagined to be me carrying out work as an immigration consultant. In other words what he had fared the ACC, criminal and district courts was nothing more than his wild imagination with the ACC failing to validate one single piece of evidence despite the fact that they acquired a large number of search warrants which confirmed that I was not working given that the ACC discovered not one single work task activity at any material time nor any earnings of any description.

Mini when I speak of discovering and discussing errors with the view to correcting those errors I am talking about the real ACC related matters and not your petty squabbles.

Mini please focus your attention on ACC matters and help one another.

[BLURB]

Alan Thomas, on 13 January 2015 - 11:23 AM, said:

This is the type of language that his best friend Kenneth Miller uses who is the moderator to decide that Fran has set up. It is hardly any wonder that the new site has failed already. It seems that they are now trying to destroy this site to bolster the membership to their own site. Obviously we are concerned about the damage that lowlife like these people are doing to this site.

ACCforum.nz is far from being a failure Mr Thomas.

We have no intention of destroying this site, you and your admin are doing that yourselves by allowing those who clearly are your supporters to destroy it yourselves by abusing, harassing, threatening and slandering innocent and vulnerable claimants!

It also doesn't help the integrity of this forum to allow one or two of it's more prominent members (ie rex, butler, netcoachnz etc) to continuously flout the rules, and also to post that accforum.nz has 'dubious scripting' etc in an attempt to stop visitors from visiting my forum Mr Thomas!

We are also transparent as to who who owns, moderates and administrates accforum.nz Mr Thomas, unlike this forum where that information is kept from everybody. Do you have something to hide by doing that?

2500 plus visitors on average each week since it opened is pretty healthy if if I say so myself.

Visitor, and membership, and posting numbers will only increase as time goes by.

[BLURB]

Alan Thomas wrote

Quote

People have permission to use the site for the sites purpose and they certainly do not have permission to use the site as the vehicle to attack another person.

How times have changed.

Mr Thomas is even encouraging that sort of behaviour now!

[REX]

BLURB, on 13 January 2015 - 02:44 PM, said:

ACCforum.nz is far from being a failure Mr Thomas.

We have no intention of destroying this site, you and your admin are doing that yourselves by allowing those who clearly are your supporters to destroy it yourselves by abusing, harassing, threatening and slandering innocent and vulnerable claimants!

It also doesn't help the integrity of this forum to allow one or two of it's more prominent members (ie rex, butler, netcoachnz etc) to continuously flout the rules, and also to post that accforum.nz has 'dubious scripting' etc in an attempt to stop visitors from visiting my forum Mr Thomas!

We are also transparent as to who who owns, moderates and administrates accforum.nz Mr Thomas, unlike this forum where that information is kept from everybody. Do you have something to hide by doing that?

2500 plus visitors on average each week since it opened is pretty healthy if if I say so myself.

Visitor, and membership, and posting numbers will only increase as time goes by.

You're well known for making up multiple memberships and creating traffic.

Playing with yourself isn't actual traffic BLUDGER.

You attack the integrity of the administration here with any chance you get.

You only ask who's who so you can attack them whether its good for the injured or not.

No wonder you have no real members as such.

You should have called it Criminal/conspirators playground.

[Alan Thomas]

Fran you make more posts than anyone but never ever make posts aout how to help claimants with ACC issues.

Your posts all sound like a 100 empty rubbish bins rolling down the street.

[Alan Thomas]

BLURB, on 13 January 2015 - 03:13 PM, said:

Alan Thomas wrote



How times have changed.

Mr Thomas is even encouraging that sort of behaviour now!

How can you just lie like that.

I don't even talk to anyone!

[Tomcat]

Alan Thomas, on 13 January 2015 - 07:51 AM, said:

How do you explain Prof Millar failing 70% of his cases?

/>/>.... J M LAW HAVE WON ALL MY CASES .... AND SET SOME PRECEDENTS

WHICH HAVE HELPED MANY AND PUT MONEY IN THEIR POCKETS...

WHAT HAVE YOU DONE THAT ANYONE HAS GAINED BENEFIT FROM???

= NOTHING EXCEPT LOSE...

[Alan Thomas]

Tomcat, on 13 January 2015 - 05:26 PM, said:

.... J M LAW HAVE WON ALL MY CASES .... AND SET SOME PRECEDENTS

WHICH HAVE HELPED MANY AND PUT MONEY IN THEIR POCKETS...

WHAT HAVE YOU DONE THAT ANYONE HAS GAINED BENEFIT FROM???

= NOTHING EXCEPT LOSE...

John Miller takes on the most difficult cases and ACC response to his presentations with a far greater level of legal resources funded from ACC levies.

Other the number of people I have helped my success rate is way higher than 50%.

You seem to conveniently forget that I have been directly involved in having ACC claim is that have been wrong fully prosecuted for fraud brought out of prison. I have also stopped a significant number from going to prison in relation to ACC wrong fully prosecuting for fraud. An even greater number have benefited from my guidance rehabilitating into new occupations and I have even help some get their surgery.

Right now on another thread new claimant members joining the site are benefiting from flowchart that I have made.

You may criticise me but at least I try my very best of my residual capacity.

What have you done?

Seriously that is a real question. WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?

[REX]

Alan Thomas, on 13 January 2015 - 06:05 PM, said:

John Miller takes on the most difficult cases and ACC response to his presentations with a far greater level of legal resources funded from ACC levies.

Other the number of people I have helped my success rate is way higher than 50%.

You seem to conveniently forget that I have been directly involved in having ACC claim is that have been wrong fully prosecuted for fraud brought out of prison. I have also stopped a significant number from going to prison in relation to ACC wrong fully prosecuting for fraud. An even greater number have benefited from my guidance rehabilitating into new occupations and I have even help some get their surgery.

Right now on another thread new claimant members joining the site are benefiting from flowchart that I have made.

You may criticise me but at least I try my very best of my residual capacity.

What have you done?

Seriously that is a real question. WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?

**puts hand up to answer**

NOTHING except CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.

ROBBED INJURED FROM HAVING ACCFORUM.ORG without his Tag teams interference so it all but disbands.

FOR SELF PROFIT.

TOMCAT is a fiddler.

[Tomcat]

Alan Thomas, on 13 January 2015 - 06:05 PM, said:

John Miller takes on the most difficult cases and ACC response to his presentations with a far greater level of legal resources funded from ACC levies.

Other the number of people I have helped my success rate is way higher than 50%.

You seem to conveniently forget that I have been directly involved in having ACC claim is that have been wrong fully prosecuted for fraud brought out of prison. I have also stopped a significant number from going to prison in relation to ACC wrong fully prosecuting for fraud. An even greater number have benefited from my guidance rehabilitating into new occupations and I have even help some get their surgery.

Right now on another thread new claimant members joining the site are benefiting from flowchart that I have made.

You may criticise me but at least I try my very best of my residual capacity.

What have you done?

Seriously that is a real question. WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?

/>/>...LIAR FRAUDSTER PERVERT....

50% success rate = BULLSHIT... 50% of 1 maybe...

YOU WERE NOT WRONGLY CHARGED OR CONVICTED ... YOU WERE AND STILL ARE GUILTY AS SIN... FOOL...
YOU HOG THE SPOTLIGHT... BUT WHEN WILL YOU LOOK AT THE REAL PICTURE. = ITS ALL BAD FOOL...
NO WAY CAN YOU EVER CONVINCE ANYONE OF YOUR VERSION...
You need to cut the crap re residual capacity....

WHAT HAVE I DONE... = MY BUSINESS...FOOL....( its more than you will ever know )...

[Tomcat]

REX, on 13 January 2015 - 06:48 PM, said:

**puts hand up to answer**

NOTHING except CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.

ROBBED INJURED FROM HAVING ACCFORUM.ORG without his Tag teams interference so it all but disbands.

FOR SELF PROFIT.

TOMCAT is a fiddler.

/>/>...BUM BANDIT REX... A KNOWN RETARDED FIDDLER....

[REX]

Tomcat, on 13 January 2015 - 07:24 PM, said:

/>/>...BUM BANDIT REX... A KNOWN RETARDED FIDDLER....

Tell us what its like to be just like BLURB and only have goals of leaching off societies benefits meant for Vulnerable homeless and injured.