Because you pointed it out? Really? 
Let's look at the reality of, not your (what's your word for the day?) "revisionist" or imagined version, what actually happened mate.
* I first post a reply to s@int (not you) in which I say I understand why people like to say 'I told you so' but don't understand why they use it in a confrontational manner. [A full day after I started a topic in which I said 'I told you so' btw.] Hence the wink 
in my first post to s@int.
* You then, for some weird but not unexpected reason, decided to point out that I have said 'I told you so' before. Like you're some sort of (what was your word for yesterday?) "Poirot". Completely ignoring the fact, of course, that I had already told s@int I understood why people do that.
* You are now claiming that I have changed my stance on 'I told you so' because you pointed out that I have also done that. Even tho' I posted it before you tried to manufacture your usual confrontation by wading yet again.
* In short you are claiming credit for something which happened before you went out of your way to be offended.
Bait; in what way?
After all you are the only person who seems to have taken exception to my opinion (and it is only that; an opinion) to the point where you seek confrontation. Is it because you believe the "bait" was set out for you beerbelly? Why?
Serious question: What did you see, in my post that made you believe I was baiting you beerbelly? Surely not the 'I told you so' because as I said I understand why people do that. So what exactly did you take exception to; my opinion on 'confrontation'? Is that how you see yourself beerbelly; as someone who seeks confrontation?
If that's how you see yourself fair enough buddy but the truth is i didn't write that with you in mind... I'm sorry if you saw yourself in there but I honestly (and please don't take offence at this) never pay you a second thought when I'm replying to others.
I hope this helps beerbelly, I really do... I can assure you that I never changed my tune because you proved I'm "guilty" Poirot. 1: you really aren't that influential; 2: I've often said I was "guilty" long before you happened upon the forum and 3: I genuinely don't find 'I told you so' as offensive as manufactured confrontation.
That said - you are right - I need to practice what I preach. If you need; I'll run my posts (after this one) past you before I post them... I don't want to inflame your paranoia any more than I already have... but only if you promise to be good and only stalk other folk. 
Well, what is good for the goose is good for the gander...
In the aftermath of this squirming, I have to ask, do you read what you actually write or do you imagine what you wrote?
After it was pointed out that you don't mind playing 'I told you so' something you said you "can understand" even though you didn't specifically highlight why you can understand it
at which point I pointed it out that you do it yourself, you then
had to admit after my detective work, you're one of the "insecure" people who have the need to do this. Well, done for admitting this BTW. You then in the same post decided to conflict all this hard work you did by stating this:
I happened to believe he was better than he was being given credit for and he could turn things 'round very quickly. How brilliant am I? To rub people's nose in 'it' would have served no purpose other than to inflame conflict in my opinion.
Indeed. "How brilliant are you" Mr Bubby for saying you were right all along (about Henderson & Agger for e.g.) but to rub people's noses in 'it', surely this serves no purpose other than to inflame conflict in your opinion. It seems, your own insecurities apply to this statement doesn't it. So, now you could perhaps tell us why your own insecurities ('I told you so, how brilliant am I') in rubbing people's noses in it make you want to inflame conflict? After all, with this self admission of your insecurities which in your words lead onto inflaming conflict, surely you are the person who is in the best position to address these apparent sanctimonious statements you've dotted about in your posts?
Bait; in what way?
After all you are the only person who seems to have taken exception to my opinion (and it is only that; an opinion) to the point where you seek confrontation. Is it because you believe the "bait" was set out for you beerbelly? Why?
After telling us, using now what was clearly an empty and faux post of all "moving on" you decided a day later to carry on this discussion with more contrary views to my initial point. You couldn't let it rest and heed your own advice, you decided to carry it on and I responded in kind which has now seem to have taken a personal tone, with the "I seek confrontation" & 'I stalk you, post', I'm not saying these were in that particular post but since that post, and the points I responded to, you've gone further to make it more personal by flattering yourself by saying that you've got your own stalker. I sincerely apologise if I make you feel that way and will be more careful in what I post around you more often.
But Mr Bubby, I too am equally flattered by the little village mentality that you and a few hyenas have decided to form, lobby and stir up with your agenda against me, your wild imaginations and collective perceptions have led you to band together and tar baby an individual poster. I suppose it's better in numbers for you to go into your 'troll/Manc/Wum thread and endeavor to bi.tch and whinge about one particular poster and build an agenda up about that person so your equilibrium on this forum remains as Status Quo. I mean, I do not find it a coincidence that some of the same people in that thread are now in this thread turning this current debate around with the strawman arguments like: 'we're now being told by Beerbelly that we don't have the right to support the manager' - figurative rhetoric. That kind of thought hasn't been stated once it's just come from the imagination of a few. The argument(s) is/are distorted upon lies and the "confrontations" you seem to question are coming from the same posters in the 'troll/manc/wum' thread and this one.
The funny thing is, while you have colluded with your friends to drum up support and point out all my wrong doings here and in your other thread, myself, and a couple others have
independently come to the same conclusions in this thread re Rodgers and the utter negative views of some people and pointed this out. In turn the forum's guardians have again banded together in support to build-up strawman arguments and deflect their initial utterances about Rodgers by somehow, and in one shape or form by accusing the people who supported Rodgers as the ones who are "wrong" in this debate.
