“..... but it looks like all you tims have ego issues!!”
Brilliant
comment by (U22371)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Tully 1 (U20686)
posted 1 minute ago
'Other member clubs, who have seen the evidence we hold, share our concerns'.
This sentence has a subordinate clause with two qualifiers. Take away the subordinate clause or the qualifiers and you change meaning of the sentence.
Take away the subordinate clause, 'who have seen the evidence we hold' and the sentence now reads 'other members share our concerns', which is totally different in meaning from the original sentence.
The two qualifiers are a) 'those [members] who have seen the evidence' and b) [the evidence] 'we hold'.
If you take away the second qualifier ('we hold' )the sentence then reads 'Other members, who have seen the evidence, share our concerns'.Now that is precisely what some claim the sentence is saying. But the second qualifier[the evidence] 'we hold' is equally important. And the reason it is important is that it tells you who has the evidence and in this case 'we' - Rangers - have the evidence.
If Rangers 'hold' the evidence, how do others get it? One of three ways: steal it, it is shown to them or given to them by Rangers.
The idea that Rangers 'hold' the evidence is supported also by later references to 'having a dossier of evidence'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What a load of uneducated, googled schite!! You quite clearly said that Park had said in his statement that he shared the evidence with others!! Park clearly did not say this and only said that others had seen it!! Maybe it was one of those clubs that saw it and then shared it with Park!! Whatever, Park did not say he shared it!! For the life of god just admit you were wrong!! Your refusal to admit being wrong has just led you to being a liar and fookin stupid to boot!! You could have just got away with being wrong but it looks like all you tims have ego issues!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi.
You ready to apologise to me yet?
You don’t want to be seen as a hypocrite, do you?
If clubs take a position without seeing the evidence then that is wrong too.
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 1 minute ago
There's another possibility. That the evidence comes from other clubs in the first instance - yes, ICT, I'm looking at you.
So, they have seen it but it's not been shared by Rangers.
They are scheitebags and are using Rangers as the big bully for their own self-interest?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why not back the request for the AGM then? Or would that be too obvious?!
Plus, rangers said ‘other clubs’, implying a few had seen it?
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 1 minute ago
Ginger-I thought much the same. But, if the SPFL are so sure of themselves, then they’ll let this run it’s course to ensure that the dossier of evidence is released to all the clubs. Rangers have said they will release it in plenty of time before the meeting. I think that means they have a week from now to do that, to make sure they comply with their statement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah I get that but St Mirren for one have already stated their position. There are significant rumblings from many clubs in Leagues 1 and 2 I believe.
Enough of them come forward before the due date and it’s fait accompli. Rangers dossier like Aberdeen’s vote becomes irrelevant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I genuinely hope that no more come forward. If there is any credible evidence of bullying, corruption, bribery etc then it needs to be heard and considered.
comment by Tully 1 (U20686)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by (U22371)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Tully 1 (U20686)
posted 1 minute ago
'Other member clubs, who have seen the evidence we hold, share our concerns'.
This sentence has a subordinate clause with two qualifiers. Take away the subordinate clause or the qualifiers and you change meaning of the sentence.
Take away the subordinate clause, 'who have seen the evidence we hold' and the sentence now reads 'other members share our concerns', which is totally different in meaning from the original sentence.
The two qualifiers are a) 'those [members] who have seen the evidence' and b) [the evidence] 'we hold'.
If you take away the second qualifier ('we hold' )the sentence then reads 'Other members, who have seen the evidence, share our concerns'.Now that is precisely what some claim the sentence is saying. But the second qualifier[the evidence] 'we hold' is equally important. And the reason it is important is that it tells you who has the evidence and in this case 'we' - Rangers - have the evidence.
If Rangers 'hold' the evidence, how do others get it? One of three ways: steal it, it is shown to them or given to them by Rangers.
The idea that Rangers 'hold' the evidence is supported also by later references to 'having a dossier of evidence'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What a load of uneducated, googled schite!! You quite clearly said that Park had said in his statement that he shared the evidence with others!! Park clearly did not say this and only said that others had seen it!! Maybe it was one of those clubs that saw it and then shared it with Park!! Whatever, Park did not say he shared it!! For the life of god just admit you were wrong!! Your refusal to admit being wrong has just led you to being a liar and fookin stupid to boot!! You could have just got away with being wrong but it looks like all you tims have ego issues!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whatever
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What is your problem with saying you are wrong!! “Aye but if you take away parts of what he said it implies something else”!! What an embarrassing pile of schite!! Why can’t you just say you misread it and got it wrong?!!
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 15 seconds ago
If clubs take a position without seeing the evidence then that is wrong too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s hilarious the way Budge is acting btw
I mean it’s not like she doesn’t need the support of 11 clubs in the top division is it?
comment by Tully 1 (U20686)
posted 27 seconds ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 1 minute ago
Ginger-I thought much the same. But, if the SPFL are so sure of themselves, then they’ll let this run it’s course to ensure that the dossier of evidence is released to all the clubs. Rangers have said they will release it in plenty of time before the meeting. I think that means they have a week from now to do that, to make sure they comply with their statement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah I get that but St Mirren for one have already stated their position. There are significant rumblings from many clubs in Leagues 1 and 2 I believe.
Enough of them come forward before the due date and it’s fait accompli. Rangers dossier like Aberdeen’s vote becomes irrelevant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I genuinely hope that no more come forward. If there is any credible evidence of bullying, corruption, bribery etc then it needs to be heard and considered.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh I wholly agree.
I’ve said all along any corruption, coercion etc and it needs outed.
And I’m gagging to see this dossier
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by (U22371)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Tully 1 (U20686)
posted 7 minutes ago
'Other member clubs, who have seen the evidence we hold, share our concerns'.
This sentence has a subordinate clause with two qualifiers. Take away the subordinate clause or the qualifiers and you change meaning of the sentence.
Take away the subordinate clause, 'who have seen the evidence we hold' and the sentence now reads 'other members share our concerns', which is totally different in meaning from the original sentence.
The two qualifiers are a) 'those [members] who have seen the evidence' and b) [the evidence] 'we hold'.
If you take away the second qualifier ('we hold' )the sentence then reads 'Other members, who have seen the evidence, share our concerns'.Now that is precisely what some claim the sentence is saying. But the second qualifier[the evidence] 'we hold' is equally important. And the reason it is important is that it tells you who has the evidence and in this case 'we' - Rangers - have the evidence.
If Rangers 'hold' the evidence, how do others get it? One of three ways: steal it, it is shown to them or given to them by Rangers.
The idea that Rangers 'hold' the evidence is supported also by later references to 'having a dossier of evidence'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are a smelly fooking stupid liar!! That sentence has 7 words in it!! Take away words 4 and 5 and you are a stupid liar!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Take away words 4 and 5 and the meaning is changed somewhat, I.e. you are not being quite as personally offensive as you were since you no longer use an expletive, and it would appear that my olfactory problems have been resolved.
comment by lexballielegend (U22335)
posted 6 minutes ago
ffs 3/10 this time shocking stuff
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Admitting you are wrong on here, even 70% wrong, will never catch on!!
comment by Tully 1 (U20686)
posted 27 seconds ago
comment by (U22371)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Tully 1 (U20686)
posted 7 minutes ago
'Other member clubs, who have seen the evidence we hold, share our concerns'.
This sentence has a subordinate clause with two qualifiers. Take away the subordinate clause or the qualifiers and you change meaning of the sentence.
Take away the subordinate clause, 'who have seen the evidence we hold' and the sentence now reads 'other members share our concerns', which is totally different in meaning from the original sentence.
The two qualifiers are a) 'those [members] who have seen the evidence' and b) [the evidence] 'we hold'.
If you take away the second qualifier ('we hold' )the sentence then reads 'Other members, who have seen the evidence, share our concerns'.Now that is precisely what some claim the sentence is saying. But the second qualifier[the evidence] 'we hold' is equally important. And the reason it is important is that it tells you who has the evidence and in this case 'we' - Rangers - have the evidence.
If Rangers 'hold' the evidence, how do others get it? One of three ways: steal it, it is shown to them or given to them by Rangers.
The idea that Rangers 'hold' the evidence is supported also by later references to 'having a dossier of evidence'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are a smelly fooking stupid liar!! That sentence has 7 words in it!! Take away words 4 and 5 and you are a stupid liar!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Take away words 4 and 5 and the meaning is changed somewhat, I.e. you are not being quite as personally offensive as you were since you no longer use an expletive, and it would appear that my olfactory problems have been resolved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Still make you a stupid liar though, and you have done a sterling job proving it!!
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
https://imgur.com/EoRA98U
comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by Tully 1 (U20686)
posted 1 minute ago
'Other member clubs, who have seen the evidence we hold, share our concerns'.
This sentence has a subordinate clause with two qualifiers. Take away the subordinate clause or the qualifiers and you change meaning of the sentence.
Take away the subordinate clause, 'who have seen the evidence we hold' and the sentence now reads 'other members share our concerns', which is totally different in meaning from the original sentence.
The two qualifiers are a) 'those [members] who have seen the evidence' and b) [the evidence] 'we hold'.
If you take away the second qualifier ('we hold' )the sentence then reads 'Other members, who have seen the evidence, share our concerns'.Now that is precisely what some claim the sentence is saying. But the second qualifier[the evidence] 'we hold' is equally important. And the reason it is important is that it tells you who has the evidence and in this case 'we' - Rangers - have the evidence.
If Rangers 'hold' the evidence, how do others get it? One of three ways: steal it, it is shown to them or given to them by Rangers.
The idea that Rangers 'hold' the evidence is supported also by later references to 'having a dossier of evidence'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s not your work, is it?! Be honest!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
T'is all my own work.
comment by Tully 1 (U20686)
posted 58 seconds ago
comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by Tully 1 (U20686)
posted 1 minute ago
'Other member clubs, who have seen the evidence we hold, share our concerns'.
This sentence has a subordinate clause with two qualifiers. Take away the subordinate clause or the qualifiers and you change meaning of the sentence.
Take away the subordinate clause, 'who have seen the evidence we hold' and the sentence now reads 'other members share our concerns', which is totally different in meaning from the original sentence.
The two qualifiers are a) 'those [members] who have seen the evidence' and b) [the evidence] 'we hold'.
If you take away the second qualifier ('we hold' )the sentence then reads 'Other members, who have seen the evidence, share our concerns'.Now that is precisely what some claim the sentence is saying. But the second qualifier[the evidence] 'we hold' is equally important. And the reason it is important is that it tells you who has the evidence and in this case 'we' - Rangers - have the evidence.
If Rangers 'hold' the evidence, how do others get it? One of three ways: steal it, it is shown to them or given to them by Rangers.
The idea that Rangers 'hold' the evidence is supported also by later references to 'having a dossier of evidence'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s not your work, is it?! Be honest!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
T'is all my own work.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which just makes you stupid!! Your initial mistake made you wrong, you then compounded that by lying and now you have miraculously made yourself look stupid to boot!! You are quite the ticket!!
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by (U22371)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Tully 1 (U20686)
posted 27 seconds ago
comment by (U22371)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Tully 1 (U20686)
posted 7 minutes ago
'Other member clubs, who have seen the evidence we hold, share our concerns'.
This sentence has a subordinate clause with two qualifiers. Take away the subordinate clause or the qualifiers and you change meaning of the sentence.
Take away the subordinate clause, 'who have seen the evidence we hold' and the sentence now reads 'other members share our concerns', which is totally different in meaning from the original sentence.
The two qualifiers are a) 'those [members] who have seen the evidence' and b) [the evidence] 'we hold'.
If you take away the second qualifier ('we hold' )the sentence then reads 'Other members, who have seen the evidence, share our concerns'.Now that is precisely what some claim the sentence is saying. But the second qualifier[the evidence] 'we hold' is equally important. And the reason it is important is that it tells you who has the evidence and in this case 'we' - Rangers - have the evidence.
If Rangers 'hold' the evidence, how do others get it? One of three ways: steal it, it is shown to them or given to them by Rangers.
The idea that Rangers 'hold' the evidence is supported also by later references to 'having a dossier of evidence'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are a smelly fooking stupid liar!! That sentence has 7 words in it!! Take away words 4 and 5 and you are a stupid liar!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Take away words 4 and 5 and the meaning is changed somewhat, I.e. you are not being quite as personally offensive as you were since you no longer use an expletive, and it would appear that my olfactory problems have been resolved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Still make you a stupid liar though, and you have done a sterling job proving it!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll try again.
What part is it of 'other members who have seen the evidence WE HOLD'* that you do not understand?
* my emphasis.
comment by lexballielegend (U22335)
posted 38 seconds ago
8/50 what a performance
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Premiership to return in June wonder if we will.
Will be hard for sturgeon to deny us considering we are better off.
comment by Police (U14278)
posted 3 seconds ago
Premiership to return in June wonder if we will.
Will be hard for sturgeon to deny us considering we are better off.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No
Next
comment by Tully 1 (U20686)
posted 5 seconds ago
comment by (U22371)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Tully 1 (U20686)
posted 27 seconds ago
comment by (U22371)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Tully 1 (U20686)
posted 7 minutes ago
'Other member clubs, who have seen the evidence we hold, share our concerns'.
This sentence has a subordinate clause with two qualifiers. Take away the subordinate clause or the qualifiers and you change meaning of the sentence.
Take away the subordinate clause, 'who have seen the evidence we hold' and the sentence now reads 'other members share our concerns', which is totally different in meaning from the original sentence.
The two qualifiers are a) 'those [members] who have seen the evidence' and b) [the evidence] 'we hold'.
If you take away the second qualifier ('we hold' )the sentence then reads 'Other members, who have seen the evidence, share our concerns'.Now that is precisely what some claim the sentence is saying. But the second qualifier[the evidence] 'we hold' is equally important. And the reason it is important is that it tells you who has the evidence and in this case 'we' - Rangers - have the evidence.
If Rangers 'hold' the evidence, how do others get it? One of three ways: steal it, it is shown to them or given to them by Rangers.
The idea that Rangers 'hold' the evidence is supported also by later references to 'having a dossier of evidence'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are a smelly fooking stupid liar!! That sentence has 7 words in it!! Take away words 4 and 5 and you are a stupid liar!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Take away words 4 and 5 and the meaning is changed somewhat, I.e. you are not being quite as personally offensive as you were since you no longer use an expletive, and it would appear that my olfactory problems have been resolved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Still make you a stupid liar though, and you have done a sterling job proving it!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll try again.
What part is it of 'other members who have seen the evidence WE HOLD'* that you do not understand?
* my emphasis.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It still doesn’t say that Park passed it on FFS!!! If I give you a copy of evidence I have the you can quite rightly say that others have seen the evidence, but it doesn’t mean that you gave it to me!! How fookin thick can one person be!! Park never at any time said he shared the evidence, only that others had seen the same evidence!! Give it up FFS and just admit you made a mistake!!
Your fellow fans must be embarrassed at your gross stupidity because that is exactly what it is!!
"The Dubious Motives of Rangers"
Page 10 of 17
11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15
posted on 30/4/20
“..... but it looks like all you tims have ego issues!!”
Brilliant
posted on 30/4/20
comment by (U22371)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Tully 1 (U20686)
posted 1 minute ago
'Other member clubs, who have seen the evidence we hold, share our concerns'.
This sentence has a subordinate clause with two qualifiers. Take away the subordinate clause or the qualifiers and you change meaning of the sentence.
Take away the subordinate clause, 'who have seen the evidence we hold' and the sentence now reads 'other members share our concerns', which is totally different in meaning from the original sentence.
The two qualifiers are a) 'those [members] who have seen the evidence' and b) [the evidence] 'we hold'.
If you take away the second qualifier ('we hold' )the sentence then reads 'Other members, who have seen the evidence, share our concerns'.Now that is precisely what some claim the sentence is saying. But the second qualifier[the evidence] 'we hold' is equally important. And the reason it is important is that it tells you who has the evidence and in this case 'we' - Rangers - have the evidence.
If Rangers 'hold' the evidence, how do others get it? One of three ways: steal it, it is shown to them or given to them by Rangers.
The idea that Rangers 'hold' the evidence is supported also by later references to 'having a dossier of evidence'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What a load of uneducated, googled schite!! You quite clearly said that Park had said in his statement that he shared the evidence with others!! Park clearly did not say this and only said that others had seen it!! Maybe it was one of those clubs that saw it and then shared it with Park!! Whatever, Park did not say he shared it!! For the life of god just admit you were wrong!! Your refusal to admit being wrong has just led you to being a liar and fookin stupid to boot!! You could have just got away with being wrong but it looks like all you tims have ego issues!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi.
You ready to apologise to me yet?
You don’t want to be seen as a hypocrite, do you?
posted on 30/4/20
If clubs take a position without seeing the evidence then that is wrong too.
posted on 30/4/20
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 1 minute ago
There's another possibility. That the evidence comes from other clubs in the first instance - yes, ICT, I'm looking at you.
So, they have seen it but it's not been shared by Rangers.
They are scheitebags and are using Rangers as the big bully for their own self-interest?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why not back the request for the AGM then? Or would that be too obvious?!
Plus, rangers said ‘other clubs’, implying a few had seen it?
posted on 30/4/20
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 1 minute ago
Ginger-I thought much the same. But, if the SPFL are so sure of themselves, then they’ll let this run it’s course to ensure that the dossier of evidence is released to all the clubs. Rangers have said they will release it in plenty of time before the meeting. I think that means they have a week from now to do that, to make sure they comply with their statement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah I get that but St Mirren for one have already stated their position. There are significant rumblings from many clubs in Leagues 1 and 2 I believe.
Enough of them come forward before the due date and it’s fait accompli. Rangers dossier like Aberdeen’s vote becomes irrelevant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I genuinely hope that no more come forward. If there is any credible evidence of bullying, corruption, bribery etc then it needs to be heard and considered.
posted on 30/4/20
comment by Tully 1 (U20686)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by (U22371)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Tully 1 (U20686)
posted 1 minute ago
'Other member clubs, who have seen the evidence we hold, share our concerns'.
This sentence has a subordinate clause with two qualifiers. Take away the subordinate clause or the qualifiers and you change meaning of the sentence.
Take away the subordinate clause, 'who have seen the evidence we hold' and the sentence now reads 'other members share our concerns', which is totally different in meaning from the original sentence.
The two qualifiers are a) 'those [members] who have seen the evidence' and b) [the evidence] 'we hold'.
If you take away the second qualifier ('we hold' )the sentence then reads 'Other members, who have seen the evidence, share our concerns'.Now that is precisely what some claim the sentence is saying. But the second qualifier[the evidence] 'we hold' is equally important. And the reason it is important is that it tells you who has the evidence and in this case 'we' - Rangers - have the evidence.
If Rangers 'hold' the evidence, how do others get it? One of three ways: steal it, it is shown to them or given to them by Rangers.
The idea that Rangers 'hold' the evidence is supported also by later references to 'having a dossier of evidence'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What a load of uneducated, googled schite!! You quite clearly said that Park had said in his statement that he shared the evidence with others!! Park clearly did not say this and only said that others had seen it!! Maybe it was one of those clubs that saw it and then shared it with Park!! Whatever, Park did not say he shared it!! For the life of god just admit you were wrong!! Your refusal to admit being wrong has just led you to being a liar and fookin stupid to boot!! You could have just got away with being wrong but it looks like all you tims have ego issues!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whatever
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What is your problem with saying you are wrong!! “Aye but if you take away parts of what he said it implies something else”!! What an embarrassing pile of schite!! Why can’t you just say you misread it and got it wrong?!!
posted on 30/4/20
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 15 seconds ago
If clubs take a position without seeing the evidence then that is wrong too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s hilarious the way Budge is acting btw
I mean it’s not like she doesn’t need the support of 11 clubs in the top division is it?
posted on 30/4/20
comment by Tully 1 (U20686)
posted 27 seconds ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 1 minute ago
Ginger-I thought much the same. But, if the SPFL are so sure of themselves, then they’ll let this run it’s course to ensure that the dossier of evidence is released to all the clubs. Rangers have said they will release it in plenty of time before the meeting. I think that means they have a week from now to do that, to make sure they comply with their statement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah I get that but St Mirren for one have already stated their position. There are significant rumblings from many clubs in Leagues 1 and 2 I believe.
Enough of them come forward before the due date and it’s fait accompli. Rangers dossier like Aberdeen’s vote becomes irrelevant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I genuinely hope that no more come forward. If there is any credible evidence of bullying, corruption, bribery etc then it needs to be heard and considered.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh I wholly agree.
I’ve said all along any corruption, coercion etc and it needs outed.
And I’m gagging to see this dossier
posted on 30/4/20
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 30/4/20
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 30/4/20
comment by (U22371)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Tully 1 (U20686)
posted 7 minutes ago
'Other member clubs, who have seen the evidence we hold, share our concerns'.
This sentence has a subordinate clause with two qualifiers. Take away the subordinate clause or the qualifiers and you change meaning of the sentence.
Take away the subordinate clause, 'who have seen the evidence we hold' and the sentence now reads 'other members share our concerns', which is totally different in meaning from the original sentence.
The two qualifiers are a) 'those [members] who have seen the evidence' and b) [the evidence] 'we hold'.
If you take away the second qualifier ('we hold' )the sentence then reads 'Other members, who have seen the evidence, share our concerns'.Now that is precisely what some claim the sentence is saying. But the second qualifier[the evidence] 'we hold' is equally important. And the reason it is important is that it tells you who has the evidence and in this case 'we' - Rangers - have the evidence.
If Rangers 'hold' the evidence, how do others get it? One of three ways: steal it, it is shown to them or given to them by Rangers.
The idea that Rangers 'hold' the evidence is supported also by later references to 'having a dossier of evidence'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are a smelly fooking stupid liar!! That sentence has 7 words in it!! Take away words 4 and 5 and you are a stupid liar!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Take away words 4 and 5 and the meaning is changed somewhat, I.e. you are not being quite as personally offensive as you were since you no longer use an expletive, and it would appear that my olfactory problems have been resolved.
posted on 30/4/20
comment by lexballielegend (U22335)
posted 6 minutes ago
ffs 3/10 this time shocking stuff
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Admitting you are wrong on here, even 70% wrong, will never catch on!!
posted on 30/4/20
comment by Tully 1 (U20686)
posted 27 seconds ago
comment by (U22371)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Tully 1 (U20686)
posted 7 minutes ago
'Other member clubs, who have seen the evidence we hold, share our concerns'.
This sentence has a subordinate clause with two qualifiers. Take away the subordinate clause or the qualifiers and you change meaning of the sentence.
Take away the subordinate clause, 'who have seen the evidence we hold' and the sentence now reads 'other members share our concerns', which is totally different in meaning from the original sentence.
The two qualifiers are a) 'those [members] who have seen the evidence' and b) [the evidence] 'we hold'.
If you take away the second qualifier ('we hold' )the sentence then reads 'Other members, who have seen the evidence, share our concerns'.Now that is precisely what some claim the sentence is saying. But the second qualifier[the evidence] 'we hold' is equally important. And the reason it is important is that it tells you who has the evidence and in this case 'we' - Rangers - have the evidence.
If Rangers 'hold' the evidence, how do others get it? One of three ways: steal it, it is shown to them or given to them by Rangers.
The idea that Rangers 'hold' the evidence is supported also by later references to 'having a dossier of evidence'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are a smelly fooking stupid liar!! That sentence has 7 words in it!! Take away words 4 and 5 and you are a stupid liar!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Take away words 4 and 5 and the meaning is changed somewhat, I.e. you are not being quite as personally offensive as you were since you no longer use an expletive, and it would appear that my olfactory problems have been resolved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Still make you a stupid liar though, and you have done a sterling job proving it!!
posted on 30/4/20
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 30/4/20
https://imgur.com/EoRA98U
posted on 30/4/20
comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by Tully 1 (U20686)
posted 1 minute ago
'Other member clubs, who have seen the evidence we hold, share our concerns'.
This sentence has a subordinate clause with two qualifiers. Take away the subordinate clause or the qualifiers and you change meaning of the sentence.
Take away the subordinate clause, 'who have seen the evidence we hold' and the sentence now reads 'other members share our concerns', which is totally different in meaning from the original sentence.
The two qualifiers are a) 'those [members] who have seen the evidence' and b) [the evidence] 'we hold'.
If you take away the second qualifier ('we hold' )the sentence then reads 'Other members, who have seen the evidence, share our concerns'.Now that is precisely what some claim the sentence is saying. But the second qualifier[the evidence] 'we hold' is equally important. And the reason it is important is that it tells you who has the evidence and in this case 'we' - Rangers - have the evidence.
If Rangers 'hold' the evidence, how do others get it? One of three ways: steal it, it is shown to them or given to them by Rangers.
The idea that Rangers 'hold' the evidence is supported also by later references to 'having a dossier of evidence'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s not your work, is it?! Be honest!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
T'is all my own work.
posted on 30/4/20
comment by Tully 1 (U20686)
posted 58 seconds ago
comment by My POV (U10636)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by Tully 1 (U20686)
posted 1 minute ago
'Other member clubs, who have seen the evidence we hold, share our concerns'.
This sentence has a subordinate clause with two qualifiers. Take away the subordinate clause or the qualifiers and you change meaning of the sentence.
Take away the subordinate clause, 'who have seen the evidence we hold' and the sentence now reads 'other members share our concerns', which is totally different in meaning from the original sentence.
The two qualifiers are a) 'those [members] who have seen the evidence' and b) [the evidence] 'we hold'.
If you take away the second qualifier ('we hold' )the sentence then reads 'Other members, who have seen the evidence, share our concerns'.Now that is precisely what some claim the sentence is saying. But the second qualifier[the evidence] 'we hold' is equally important. And the reason it is important is that it tells you who has the evidence and in this case 'we' - Rangers - have the evidence.
If Rangers 'hold' the evidence, how do others get it? One of three ways: steal it, it is shown to them or given to them by Rangers.
The idea that Rangers 'hold' the evidence is supported also by later references to 'having a dossier of evidence'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s not your work, is it?! Be honest!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
T'is all my own work.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which just makes you stupid!! Your initial mistake made you wrong, you then compounded that by lying and now you have miraculously made yourself look stupid to boot!! You are quite the ticket!!
posted on 30/4/20
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 30/4/20
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 30/4/20
comment by (U22371)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Tully 1 (U20686)
posted 27 seconds ago
comment by (U22371)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Tully 1 (U20686)
posted 7 minutes ago
'Other member clubs, who have seen the evidence we hold, share our concerns'.
This sentence has a subordinate clause with two qualifiers. Take away the subordinate clause or the qualifiers and you change meaning of the sentence.
Take away the subordinate clause, 'who have seen the evidence we hold' and the sentence now reads 'other members share our concerns', which is totally different in meaning from the original sentence.
The two qualifiers are a) 'those [members] who have seen the evidence' and b) [the evidence] 'we hold'.
If you take away the second qualifier ('we hold' )the sentence then reads 'Other members, who have seen the evidence, share our concerns'.Now that is precisely what some claim the sentence is saying. But the second qualifier[the evidence] 'we hold' is equally important. And the reason it is important is that it tells you who has the evidence and in this case 'we' - Rangers - have the evidence.
If Rangers 'hold' the evidence, how do others get it? One of three ways: steal it, it is shown to them or given to them by Rangers.
The idea that Rangers 'hold' the evidence is supported also by later references to 'having a dossier of evidence'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are a smelly fooking stupid liar!! That sentence has 7 words in it!! Take away words 4 and 5 and you are a stupid liar!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Take away words 4 and 5 and the meaning is changed somewhat, I.e. you are not being quite as personally offensive as you were since you no longer use an expletive, and it would appear that my olfactory problems have been resolved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Still make you a stupid liar though, and you have done a sterling job proving it!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll try again.
What part is it of 'other members who have seen the evidence WE HOLD'* that you do not understand?
* my emphasis.
posted on 30/4/20
comment by lexballielegend (U22335)
posted 38 seconds ago
8/50 what a performance
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 30/4/20
Premiership to return in June wonder if we will.
Will be hard for sturgeon to deny us considering we are better off.
posted on 30/4/20
comment by Police (U14278)
posted 3 seconds ago
Premiership to return in June wonder if we will.
Will be hard for sturgeon to deny us considering we are better off.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No
Next
posted on 30/4/20
comment by Tully 1 (U20686)
posted 5 seconds ago
comment by (U22371)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Tully 1 (U20686)
posted 27 seconds ago
comment by (U22371)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Tully 1 (U20686)
posted 7 minutes ago
'Other member clubs, who have seen the evidence we hold, share our concerns'.
This sentence has a subordinate clause with two qualifiers. Take away the subordinate clause or the qualifiers and you change meaning of the sentence.
Take away the subordinate clause, 'who have seen the evidence we hold' and the sentence now reads 'other members share our concerns', which is totally different in meaning from the original sentence.
The two qualifiers are a) 'those [members] who have seen the evidence' and b) [the evidence] 'we hold'.
If you take away the second qualifier ('we hold' )the sentence then reads 'Other members, who have seen the evidence, share our concerns'.Now that is precisely what some claim the sentence is saying. But the second qualifier[the evidence] 'we hold' is equally important. And the reason it is important is that it tells you who has the evidence and in this case 'we' - Rangers - have the evidence.
If Rangers 'hold' the evidence, how do others get it? One of three ways: steal it, it is shown to them or given to them by Rangers.
The idea that Rangers 'hold' the evidence is supported also by later references to 'having a dossier of evidence'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are a smelly fooking stupid liar!! That sentence has 7 words in it!! Take away words 4 and 5 and you are a stupid liar!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Take away words 4 and 5 and the meaning is changed somewhat, I.e. you are not being quite as personally offensive as you were since you no longer use an expletive, and it would appear that my olfactory problems have been resolved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Still make you a stupid liar though, and you have done a sterling job proving it!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll try again.
What part is it of 'other members who have seen the evidence WE HOLD'* that you do not understand?
* my emphasis.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It still doesn’t say that Park passed it on FFS!!! If I give you a copy of evidence I have the you can quite rightly say that others have seen the evidence, but it doesn’t mean that you gave it to me!! How fookin thick can one person be!! Park never at any time said he shared the evidence, only that others had seen the same evidence!! Give it up FFS and just admit you made a mistake!!
posted on 30/4/20
Your fellow fans must be embarrassed at your gross stupidity because that is exactly what it is!!
Page 10 of 17
11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15