+- Sports Babble - sports forum (https://www.sportsbabble.co.uk)
+-- Forum: Football (https://www.sportsbabble.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Scottish Football League (https://www.sportsbabble.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=24)
+---- Forum: Scottish Premiership (https://www.sportsbabble.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=26)
+----- Forum: Rangers (https://www.sportsbabble.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=131)
+----- Thread: RIFC (/showthread.php?tid=130)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
RE: RIFC - Paigntonhibby - 20-11-2015
(20-11-2015, 14:25)TheWorthinGer Wrote:what I said minty and the glib and shameless one said,FACT,not a claim. what I said about Ogilvie, FACT, not a claim. if you want tae call me a wanker and an idiot,carry on, i'll dae my best no' tae lose any sleep, but whatever you call me disnae change the FACT that what I said is true .After SCOs post the guests on here said that whatever the opinion offered personal abuse was out of order,then along you come,predictable as everPaigntonhibby Wrote:TheWorthinGer Wrote:If you post something it's for you to prove that it's true, and not otherwise.there ye go SCO, keyboard f#cking warriors, probably widnae have the bottle tae say it face tae face. basically St.Charles if yer brogues dinnae toe the party line yer a wanker and an idiot, if you have an opinion that differs fae theirs,yer a wanker and an idiot. and if ye quote facts that they dinnae agree wi' that's right,yer a wanker and and an idiot. fortunately I couldnae gie a toss what any rangers supporters think about me but i'll keep coming on here giving my opin ion and if they gie me abuse they'll get it back. f#ck 'em
The alternative is that you are a wanker and an idiot - because someone posted the "fact". Not that I'd argue otherwise, I've seen lots of the evidence.
Are you really so unable to understand my post? Let me explain in short bursts:
You think it is for others to disprove your claims.
Ergo, someone calls you a wanker and an idiot and it's true, fact unless you can prove otherwise.
However, it's for the poster to prove that what they post as fact is so.
Otherwise, you are a wanker and an idiot...because someone posted it.
RE: RIFC - Trusevich - 20-11-2015
(20-11-2015, 16:55)hibeejim21 Wrote: BDOs have said today they are "reviewing the judgment and are considering their position".
Nothing confirmed.
Absolutely.
The Herald article doesn't confirm it as a done deal. They say that it'll be confirmed next week, so they're claiming toi have some sort of inside knowledge seeing as the appeal application deadline is 2nd December.
(20-11-2015, 17:18)Paigntonhibby Wrote:(20-11-2015, 14:25)TheWorthinGer Wrote: Are you really so unable to understand my post? Let me explain in short burstswhat I said minty and the glib and shameless one said,FACT,not a claim. what I said about Ogilvie, FACT, not a claim. if you want tae call me a wanker and an idiot,carry on, i'll dae my best no' tae lose any sleep, but whatever you call me disnae change the FACT that what I said is true .After SCOs post the guests on here said that whatever the opinion offered personal abuse was out of order,then along you come,predictable as ever
You think it is for others to disprove your claims.
Ergo, someone calls you a wanker and an idiot and it's true, fact unless you can prove otherwise.
However, it's for the poster to prove that what they post as fact is so.
Otherwise, you are a wanker and an idiot...because someone posted it.
He didn't call you a wanker or an idiot. You are misunderstanding his words, and jumping to a knee-jerk over-reaction.
RE: RIFC - TheWorthinGer - 20-11-2015
Trusevich Wrote:hibeejim21 Wrote:BDOs have said today they are "reviewing the judgment and are considering their position".
Nothing confirmed.
Absolutely.
The Herald article doesn't confirm it as a done deal. They say that it'll be confirmed next week, so they're claiming toi have some sort of inside knowledge seeing as the appeal application deadline is 2nd December.
Paigntonhibby Wrote:TheWorthinGer Wrote:Are you really so unable to understand my post? Let me explain in short burstswhat I said minty and the glib and shameless one said,FACT,not a claim. what I said about Ogilvie, FACT, not a claim. if you want tae call me a wanker and an idiot,carry on, i'll dae my best no' tae lose any sleep, but whatever you call me disnae change the FACT that what I said is true .After SCOs post the guests on here said that whatever the opinion offered personal abuse was out of order,then along you come,predictable as ever
You think it is for others to disprove your claims.
Ergo, someone calls you a wanker and an idiot and it's true, fact unless you can prove otherwise.
However, it's for the poster to prove that what they post as fact is so.
Otherwise, you are a wanker and an idiot...because someone posted it.
He didn't call you a wanker or an idiot. You are misunderstanding his words, and jumping to a knee-jerk over-reaction.
Why bother, if you don't stand on a biscuit tin and shout in a pseudo language he obviously can't understand.
Let's face it, he has failed grasp anything of what I posted. And I made it simple enough for a wanking idiot to take in.
RE: RIFC - Larry-AV - 20-11-2015
This is the article mentioned here. Apart from Rangers, it also states that HMRC intoduced a scheme in 2011 to deal with EBT cases. This scheme was ended in March this year {2015} and HMRC's stance now is pay up or litigate.
Herald Scotland - Rangers oldco liquidators set to take 'Big Tax Case' to a Supreme Court appeal
RE: RIFC - Trusevich - 20-11-2015
(20-11-2015, 17:53)TheWorthinGer Wrote: Why bother, if you don't stand on a biscuit tin and shout in a pseudo language he obviously can't understand.
Let's face it, he has failed grasp anything of what I posted. And I made it simple enough for a wanking idiot to take in.
We're all aware of 'self projection' - where the sufferer endows others with their own short-comings and psychological failings. I think he might be suffering from self introjection - he's assuming that he is whatever he thinks is suggested.
Or am I just standing on the wrong shortbread tin?
RE: RIFC - hibeejim21 - 20-11-2015
Glaswegians referring to a pseudo language....thats xxxx funny.
Beer time. For certain.
RE: RIFC - Trusevich - 20-11-2015
F*ck me, I'm Glaswegian now?
Trosks, slounks an' sloo'ans the lot o' ye!
RE: RIFC - Paigntonhibby - 20-11-2015
(20-11-2015, 12:02)TheWorthinGer Wrote: If you post something it's for you to prove that it's true, and not otherwise.hope that sorted that little misunderstanding, dinnae ken what you lot call name calling. nae biscuit tin required there then
The alternative is that you are a wanker and an idiot - because someone posted the "fact". NOT THAT I'D ARGUE OTHERWISE,I'VE SEEN LOTS OF THE EVIDENCE
RE: RIFC - TheWorthinGer - 20-11-2015
(20-11-2015, 19:06)Paigntonhibby Wrote:(20-11-2015, 12:02)TheWorthinGer Wrote: If you post something it's for you to prove that it's true, and not otherwise.hope that sorted that little misunderstanding, dinnae ken what you lot call name calling. nae biscuit tin required there then
The alternative is that you are a wanker and an idiot - because someone posted the "fact". NOT THAT I'D ARGUE OTHERWISE,I'VE SEEN LOTS OF THE EVIDENCE
Because i agree with something doesn't mean that I said it.
RE: RIFC - Paigntonhibby - 20-11-2015
(20-11-2015, 19:53)TheWorthinGer Wrote:(20-11-2015, 19:06)Paigntonhibby Wrote:(20-11-2015, 12:02)TheWorthinGer Wrote: If you post something it's for you to prove that it's true, and not otherwise.hope that sorted that little misunderstanding, dinnae ken what you lot call name calling. nae biscuit tin required there then
The alternative is that you are a wanker and an idiot - because someone posted the "fact". NOT THAT I'D ARGUE OTHERWISE,I'VE SEEN LOTS OF THE EVIDENCE
Because i agree with something doesn't mean that I said it.
whatever