AJ -Whyte still involved!!

[crucible 0]

Has CF not been seen to be accurate previously ? Serious question

 

I couldn't even hazard a guess I don't frequent Rangers hating sites, I saw on FF it was credited to the fakes site.

[craig 5,199]

I couldn't even hazard a guess I don't frequent Rangers hating sites, I saw on FF it was credited to the fakes site.

 

So if there is the possibility that this is genuine (seems neither you or I know for sure the veracity of info coming from CF) then there is the chance the narrative posted by FS is factual from Pinsent Masons, correct ? In which case, the statements used within that narrative are very speculative in nature.

 

So, even though you see it as a Rangers-hating website (which is fair enough), it stands to reason that Pinsent Masons could very well be speculating. Doesnt mean they arent a well respected firm but that narrative certainly suggests that they are not completely certain that Whyte wasnt involved in some way or another - only that they could possibly gain more comfort if they had more co-operation by the people listed.

[crucible 0]

So if there is the possibility that this is genuine (seems neither you or I know for sure the veracity of info coming from CF) then there is the chance the narrative posted by FS is factual from Pinsent Masons, correct ? In which case, the statements used within that narrative are very speculative in nature.

 

So, even though you see it as a Rangers-hating website (which is fair enough), it stands to reason that Pinsent Masons could very well be speculating. Doesnt mean they arent a well respected firm but that narrative certainly suggests that they are not completely certain that Whyte wasnt involved in some way or another - only that they could possibly gain more comfort if they had more co-operation by the people listed.

 

You would obviously have to trust a Rangers hating site that uses doctored docs as your choice of source, your prerogative to give them the credence that no one I know would.

[craig 5,199]

You would obviously have to trust a Rangers hating site that uses doctored docs as your choice of source, your prerogative to give them the credence that no one I know would.

 

So we have made the quantum leap of "I wouldnt hazard a guess as I dont frequent Rangers-hating websites" to proof positive that they use doctored documents ? Even if they do doctor documents I havent seen any proof that this one is doctored, have you ?

 

It seems to me that you are basing all of this on the premise that CF is Rangers-hating and therefore must always be wrong when there is the suggestion your argument may be flawed.

 

If what FS posted IS from Pinsent Masons then they were making speculative statements, regardless of where they came from.

 

The one thing we know is Pinsent Masons is respected. We do not know whether they speculated on Whyte's involvement, but it certainly is plausible. But you are denying it based on CF being Rangers-hating. Rangers-hating doesnt make it untruthful.

[forlanssister 3,114]

I will definitely leave it with you, work to do.

 

Ah such modesty omitting to include some of your own musings in order to alter the context, I'm content to let people read it themselves from post #37 forward and let them draw their own conclusions.

 

Though if you may indulge and point out where in this thread where I have as you state claimed Pinsent Mason's are 'spinning' or that they are anything but 'honest' ?

[crucible 0]

So we have made the quantum leap of "I wouldnt hazard a guess as I dont frequent Rangers-hating websites" to proof positive that they use doctored documents ? Even if they do doctor documents I havent seen any proof that this one is doctored, have you ?

 

It seems to me that you are basing all of this on the premise that CF is Rangers-hating and therefore must always be wrong when there is the suggestion your argument may be flawed.

 

If what FS posted IS from Pinsent Masons then they were making speculative statements, regardless of where they came from.

 

The one thing we know is Pinsent Masons is respected. We do not know whether they speculated on Whyte's involvement, but it certainly is plausible. But you are denying it based on CF being Rangers-hating. Rangers-hating doesnt make it untruthful.

 

Enough said, if you want to continue to attempt to justify a Rangers hating site carry on.

[crucible 0]

Who's actually doing the speculating though?

 

 

Let me hazard a guess and say charlotte fakes.

 

My guess is Pinsent Masons.

 

Ah such modesty omitting to include some of your own musings in order to alter the context, I'm content to let people read it themselves from post #37 forward and let them draw their own conclusions.

 

Though if you may indulge and point out where in this thread where I have as you state claimed Pinsent Mason's are 'spinning' or that they are anything but 'honest' ?

 

Pretty clear what you claimed, as you guessed Pinsent Masons, thing is what are you suggesting they were speculating about, maybe check with your source ?

[the gunslinger 3,366]

I love how the people who dont like what they see on cf tell us its fake.

 

Trouble is It never is. Indeed stockbridge and mather confirmed it was real last week.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

You woukd need to be a moron not to understand what fs is saying or obtuse. Which is it crucible.

[craig 5,199]

Pretty clear what you claimed, as you guessed Pinsent Masons, thing is what are you suggesting they were speculating about, maybe check with your source ?

 

You use the same quotes yet again which prove absolutely nothing. You are creating a false context - and I believe it is deliberate.

 

You certainly arent covering yourself in glory here.

 

Also, show me where I, or anyone else, are justifying a Rangers hating site.... you cant. No justifications made. You cant simply make things up and expect not to be challenged on them.