Rangers are Rocking; Scottys Financial insight inside. - Page 501 - Football related - Discussion of non TA football - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Rangers are Rocking; Scottys Financial insight inside.


Speirs  

64 members have voted

  1. 1. Was Speirs talking the truth or lying

    • Yes
      54
    • No
      10

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Debian said:

Again, liquidated is incorrect.  Can we at least provide and use facts if we are to cover old ground.  

Ok I’ll change liquidated to entered liquidation, now are there any unpaid debts owed from the pre sevco days? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Debian said:

You'd have been as well just agreeing you were wrong rather than provided some additional words to prove you were.  

You've not understood the point if you think that is what I was communicating. As I said your semantic argument will be moot soon anyway. While my original point of a facsimile being entered into Division 3, the actual point of discussion, will continue to be true in perpetuity. The fact you're arguing about using a verb over a past participle in a sentence i used and not the actual point is further proof of that. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, phart said:

You've not understood the point if you think that is what I was communicating. As I said your semantic argument will be moot soon anyway. While my original point of a facsimile being entered into Division 3, the actual point of discussion, will continue to be true in perpetuity. The fact you're arguing about using a verb over a past participle in a sentence i used and not the actual point is further proof of that. 

Thanks for reiterating you were incorrect.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rolling hIlls said:

I will make it simple for you.  They are called Rangers.  Simple kid. Look at the league table.  No Sevco there.  Just Rangers son.  If you cannot read then that is your problem.  But hey ho hatred is hatred and if you want to call Rangers that then ok.  Scotty is the same although...………...I know I will get another ban for defending my team.  But I will.  Scotland, Rangers, Glenlivet Forever.  (and Jura)

And Trigger has had the same brush for twenty years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, RDFH64 said:

Can we try once more and give an honest answer instead of hiding behind snide replies.👍

There's nothing snide about asking someone to be clean in their question.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, phart said:

What was I incorrect about and what reference does it have to a facsimilie being entered into the third division?

Seriously? What were you incorrect about. 

Good grief, I genuinely thought you were fishing.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Debian said:

There's nothing snide about asking someone to be clean in their question.  

I think I should apologise for my lack of knowledge with the legally technical term for bankruptcy, as neither myself or the club I support used that get out to avoid paying for services/goods received I haven’t gone into the proper wording, again sorry for not being a scumbag👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RDFH64 said:

I think I should apologise for my lack of knowledge with the legally technical term for bankruptcy, as neither myself or the club I support used that get out to avoid paying for services/goods received I haven’t gone into the proper wording, again sorry for not being a scumbag👍

No need to apologise, but glad you acknowledged you dont understand.  Takes a big person to admit they're wrong.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Rolling hIlls said:

A fake title.  As were the other ones when Rangers were put down the leagues.  The league hasn't even been completed this year.  But you celebrate a fake league.  Kid.

The only think fake about it is the points distance, had the season been played out it would have been 20. 
 

Your club died and the best part of it is you sat back and let it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, phart said:

You've not understood the point if you think that is what I was communicating. As I said your semantic argument will be moot soon anyway. While my original point of a facsimile being entered into Division 3, the actual point of discussion, will continue to be true in perpetuity. The fact you're arguing about using a verb over a past participle in a sentence i used and not the actual point is further proof of that. 

 

 

Aah, past participles. That takes me back a few decades to a simpler time. 😀

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Debian said:

Seriously? What were you incorrect about. 

Good grief, I genuinely thought you were fishing.  

Again not addressing the point. It's almost if emotion is the spur to your posts rather than intellect. Pathos fares badly against logos.

It must be frustarting when passive aggression is your only release valve for your emotions.

Edited by phart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, phart said:

Again not addressing the point. It's almost if emotion is the spur to your posts rather than intellect. Pathos fares badly against logos.

It must be frustarting when passive aggression is your only release valve for your emotions.

Evening Aristotle 😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, phart said:

Again not addressing the points

It must be frustarting when passive aggression is your only release valve for your emotions

I'll do you a deal seeing as you're getting a bit over worked here.  

Have a wee sleep, come back tomorrow and if you can recognise your error I'll be more than happy to address your updated points.  I think we can all agree that's fair.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Debian said:

I'll do you a deal seeing as you're getting a bit over worked here.  

Have a wee sleep, come back tomorrow and if you can recognise your error I'll be more than happy to address your updated points.  I think we can all agree that's fair.  

I think you're projecting heavily here. Still no answers. I'll check in tomorrow see if you can think of something then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, phart said:

I think you're projecting heavily here. Still no answers. I'll check in tomorrow see if you can think of something then.

I'm the only one willing to engage with you.  

Your defence mechanism here looks to be related to your fragile ego.

Happily willing as I've stated, but I can't engage if you're not willing to work with me. 

No loss to me if you can't.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Debian said:

I'm the only one willing to engage with you.  

Your defence mechanism here looks to be related to your fragile ego.

Happily willing as I've stated, but I can't engage if you're not willing to work with me. 

No loss to me if you can't.  

This is a non-sequitur.

I've asked a question and you can't answer it.

All these words are just a smokescreen for your inability to answer.

No point saying you're willing then not answering, actions speak louder then words demonstrate your willingness by answering, rather than just typing you're willing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...