Ellis Interest Re-iterated

[Frankie 8,383]

I should add, for what it is worth, I've told N_L privately that putting one's self forward in this way would lead to criticism and cynicism from people.

 

As such, I think some of the teasing we've seen here and elsewhere should have been expected and should be water off a duck's back.

 

Sometimes we all need a thicker skin...

[chilledbear 16]

Why would that matter? Ellis already knows NL has the number and presumably makes the connection that he got it from somewhere. Why would possession of that number be such a sensitive matter? Why would we care so much if it is? Whose interests do we have at heart here?

 

It might matter if he cut you off, and snubbed NL. Even if it is all rubbish, at least NL is giving us the rubbish first.

[maineflyer 0]

I'm not chastising anyone - just simply making it clear there is a difference between doubting Ellis' comments and/or inferring N_L is a liar.

 

I'm puzzled as to why anyone would think N_L is doing this to raise his profile? Why - for what reason? As far as I can see he had a decent profile on FF previous to this and wouldn't need to do anything to increase that. I'm also pretty certain he isn't being used by certain others either for a variety of reasons.

 

Finally, people can listen in on conversations without travelling to the same venue - for example, I'm sure you have the facility on your mobile or works phone to have a conference call. However, I agree with you in that isn't really the best way of gaining the trust of people. Neither is passing on the phone number IMO - but that is only my opinion.

 

Again, I'm not asking everyone to believe N_L or Ellis. But just refrain from stuff that spoils the debate for others who are interested.

 

To an extent, surely this IS the debate. I'm delighted you have a basis for placing your trust in NL but you must be aware that there are many supporters who are not so fortunate. Personally, I have no basis for believing or disbelieving. The forum world is full of claims and counter claims, sometimes if it is important enough you have to go looking for something more tangible. As far as I'm concerned NL can settle this without contravening the official secrets act - if Ellis is so willing to communicate with NL, why would he be any different if someone else sought to confirm his position? I can't believe he feels that a stranger who obtained his phone number without his permission is somehow personally key to his efforts. In fact, it's stretching credibility and it would actually be in NL's interests to have this corroborated.

[maineflyer 0]

Didn't see the last 2 posts.

 

Maine......genuine question.

 

NL posts comments from AE on here, 2 hours later there are direct quotes from Ellis on News sources, confirming what NL has posted [also other quotes not posted].

 

I honestly fail to see what NL has done wrong.

 

I'm not aware he has done anything wrong but neither you nor I know the route or timeframe of the Ellis quotes. Anyway, I'm not accusing anyone of anything, only looking for clarification - it's not as if there hasn't already been a ton of bullshit on the subject of buying Rangers.

[Frankie 8,383]

If I were to ask you or others to provide information you had obtained on the basis it was to be kept private, I'm respect your right to refuse and wouldn't question your honesty either.

 

Remember, it may not be Ellis that would object to N_L providing his number but the person who provided it to N_L and asked for it to be kept private. I feel we should respect that wish and look to other ways of examining the information posted.

 

To that end, I think the story that came out following N_L's post yesterday should grant him an element of our trust. If you don't believe him fine but the rest of us will examine what he has to say on an ad-hoc basis and prefer to concentrate on that as opposed to his intentions which seem reasonable enough to me.

[maineflyer 0]

I should add, for what it is worth, I've told N_L privately that putting one's self forward in this way would lead to criticism and cynicism from people.

 

As such, I think some of the teasing we've seen here and elsewhere should have been expected and should be water off a duck's back.

 

Sometimes we all need a thicker skin...

 

When rumours start in our world, the cry always goes up ... "name your source", on the basis that others can then try to validate the rumour. In this case we don't appear to have that option. You might know how to access Andrew Ellis' mobile phone number but I don't, or I'd have used it long ago. Without the benefit of your personal relationship, the rest of us have to look only at what's in front of us and that's impossible to verify.

 

Perhaps, as you say, if NL didn't make such an almighty fuss every time someone offers a contrary opinion, it might be less uncomfortable to take him at face value ... but that's never been the case.

[maineflyer 0]

If I were to ask you or others to provide information you had obtained on the basis it was to be kept private, I'm respect your right to refuse and wouldn't question your honesty either.

 

Remember, it may not be Ellis that would object to N_L providing his number but the person who provided it to N_L and asked for it to be kept private. I feel we should respect that wish and look to other ways of examining the information posted.

 

To that end, I think the story that came out following N_L's post yesterday should grant him an element of our trust. If you don't believe him fine but the rest of us will examine what he has to say on an ad-hoc basis and prefer to concentrate on that as opposed to his intentions which seem reasonable enough to me.

 

I respect his right to refuse, just as I'm sure he will respect my right to ask. But I'm less concerned about the person who passed him the phone number - "I can't keep a confidence but I'm going to ask you to do just that"?

 

Finally, and this is finally, I've no interest in influencing the opinions of others on here, only furthering my own understanding of this important subject. I'm entirely content if you and everyone else stakes your worldly wealth of the veracity of NL's many posts - I only ask on my own behalf.

[chilledbear 16]

'Finally, and this is finally, I've no interest in influencing the opinions of others on here, only furthering my own understanding of this important subject'.

 

IF you can understand this whole sorry mess, a PM would be nice.

[bmck 117]

Someone needs to write an article entitled "Read all about it, Read all about it; Move along, there's nothing to see here". Every bit of of supposed news turns out to be unnews, or news that there is no news, and getting to the truth is more frustrating and unconquerable than the Times Sodoku, attempted while drunk. The paths we follow turn in on themselves as contrarily as the people we trust in contradict themselves. A plague on all their houses!

[Zappa 0]

The fact that the Ellis press release 2 hours after NL's forum post was word for word what NL posted that Ellis had told him in a phone call actually seems a bit odd to me, almost as if Ellis was reading from the press release. I guess that's entirely possible if Ellis regards NL as a web journo.