Ok I think I got confused I don't know.. That dancinguy tries to winde me up so I just started doing the same to him that's why the long thread I got the better of him in the end and people came to my defence. It went on for nearly 6 weeks. Lol.
Anyway this dick van dyke autograph is a sec but members here can believe what they want if they don't wanna believe it.

Imortalmindz wrote:I don't know what your talking about. I can't ever remember talking or bickering with that user. Can you show me where or when. ?

All the guy said was I think it's secretarial and you said he was a troll.

He didn't need to explain as its common knowledge on here. There have been more dick van dyke secretarial posts on here than i have had hot dinners so the guy did nothing wrong yet you were calling him names for no reason that's all I'm saying.

You've misread what I wrote or taken it the wrong way, I can't work out which.

My response in the thread you posted was to dancingirl and not even in an abrupt manner, this is who you bicker with, there's a mass long thread in the general section between the two of you.

Read again, I said even if his comment was intended that way, I never said it was, I said if it was.

I don't know what your talking about. I can't ever remember talking or bickering with that user. Can you show me where or when. ?

All the guy said was I think it's secretarial and you said he was a troll.

He didn't need to explain as its common knowledge on here. There have been more dick van dyke secretarial posts on here than i have had hot dinners so the guy did nothing wrong yet you were calling him names for no reason that's all I'm saying.

I don't see how you will take the comment here against me not explaining why lie detectors are not full proof, its not like I was about to write an essay on the factual premise of why lie detectors are not fully accurate.

Here in this thread the response was blunt, abrupt - I'm not saying that's a bad thing but something helpful would have been useful, the only reason I saw this thread was because I was researching Dick Van Dykes autograph in hope of finding useful information towards secretarial vs. in person.

Why you took the time to dig up a post is beyond me, the two comments do not parallel at all.

What's even more curious is that I responded to the user you're frequently bickering with, but you bring my comment which was in response to them like you're defending the comment they made, either way I don't see how I needed to explain why a lie detector is not proof when this is more common knowledge than how a specific celebrity signs.

fromuk2014 wrote:in all fairness whilst he didn't give a reason or explain his critique I think he's right even if the method was just to be a bigot or troll.
.

Well you didn't give a reason or explain this what you posted.

http://www.fanmail.biz/mboard/viewtopic ... 0#p1364980

So that makes you a bigot or a troll too. Is this correct?

An obvious secretarial signature. Too bad.

Alfie1997 wrote:

DiamondDave wrote:

Alfie1997 wrote:I think it's secretarial

And I'm pretty sure nobody gives a **** about your opinion.

I don't really care what you think. I know it's a sec as I have recieved them in the past. And have got his book signed from him in person. Both completely different styles of writing. It's common knowledge he doesn't sign TTM but you can think what you want.
----
This is his real sig that matches my IP

http://www.fanmail.biz/mboard/viewtopic.php?t=368694

I stand corrected, maybe he does sign with God Bless but its still different from ttm to in person.

DiamondDave wrote:

Alfie1997 wrote:I think it's secretarial

And I'm pretty sure nobody gives a **** about your opinion.

I don't really care what you think. I know it's a sec as I have recieved them in the past. And have got his book signed from him in person. Both completely different styles of writing. It's common knowledge he doesn't sign TTM but you can think what you want.
----
This is his real sig that matches my IP

http://www.fanmail.biz/mboard/viewtopic.php?t=368694

DiamondDave wrote:

Alfie1997 wrote:I think it's secretarial

And I'm pretty sure nobody gives a **** about your opinion.

Hey Dave, in all fairness whilst he didn't give a reason or explain his critique I think he's right even if the method was just to be a bigot or troll.

I've read time and time again that he just doesn't sign God Bless and that it is a trademark of his secretary.

I am only commenting as I had almost purchased a "God Bless" secretarial recently which was even confirmed real by an aftal member, which goes to show you have to do your own work and trust your own judgement rather than others, even if they are aftal, uacc or otherwise.

Though those at the uacc and aftal still provide valuable service.

Regardless, its still nice to get something back even if variable opinions are given and an item is determined non authentic, that's what were all here for in the long run.

Diamond Dave stop messaging me rude stuff you pervert I'm not even 18