Bluedell 5,624 Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 Bluedell I would side with Frankie on this, sook sook. I had no idea what a "fud" was until I looked it up just now: I don't think there is any need for that either, I am sure that the vast majority of people on this site are more than articulate enough to make telling points without resorting to that kind of language. It's more akin to "fanny" than the c word. Nothing wrong with calling people a fanny, fud, etc on forums when it's warranted (which it was). Sometimes words like that can just sum up someone. Sometimes it can be more effective than just saying that "his behaviour has been disgraceful", and I'd rather be called a fud than Andy S's criticism that Thomson is more impartial. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 Shut it ya fuds 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,624 Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 I would find it extremely odd if they signed the requisition knowing that they didn't have any shares; that would seem like a fraud to me. Isn't it more likely that they do own shares but not in their own names. The requestition should be in whatever name they hold the shares. It's a basic premise that any first year lawyer would get right. I can't believe that they got something as basic as that wrong. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,624 Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 Shut it ya fuds Proves my point. Far more effective than saying "Please be quiet, you rather disagreeable people." 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 Proves my point. Far more effective than saying "Please be quiet, you rather disagreeable people." Aye. Although let it be noted I was being funny/ironic just in case it's being thought i'm breaking rules. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 I though mcmurdo was insisting mccoll had 4 shares? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 Proves my point. Far more effective than saying "Please be quiet, you rather disagreeable people." I suppose it does, I'd rather be called disagreeable than a "fanny" any day; but have certainly been called much worse on some sites 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Dynamo 128 Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 So having not read the requisition Should it say who or what they're representing or acting for? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Dynamo 128 Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 And does it? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 I though mcmurdo was insisting mccoll had 4 shares? I think that's what Ahmad was feeding him, but he's changed his tune now that Irvine's on the scene spinning yarns and telling lies. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.