| "MOORE'S THE PETTY" 22:42 - Dec 14 with 29698 views | Chiswickjack4 |
Another home game, another banner in the East Stand with a message to the Americans.
I very much hope the club take their time on deciding on new/additional investment.
The value of our club is going to go through the roof once the new TV deal is announced in March... |  | | |  |
| (No subject) on 09:40 - Dec 18 with 2124 views | Shaky |
| (No subject) on 08:20 - Dec 18 by DJack |
Lisa, a simple question, or two...
Why are you lowering yourself??? Why are you providing the oxygen for his strange gratification???
His verbose meandering has you "running around" defeating his arguments. Now, you may be able to do this with your eyes closed, whilst also doing a crossword and working out how to solve world peace or whatever else but you are starting to be his messageboard marionette.
Sit back, sip some wine and chill the f*ck out. Then smile and enjoy your day. Simples. |
Well it is certainly unusual to see you posting outside the hours of 11pm-3am pissed out of your brain.
The constant that remains is your curious belief that you are in position to dispense authoritative rulings on any matter without providing a shred of reasoning or evidence. No doubt it is the same basis in self-belief (read megalomania) that has enabled you to pen your signature without a hint of shame or self irony.
However, here you might be forgiven for your misplaced self-confidence. After all, my basic argument is that in the context of the current discussions a financial instrument that includes the word debt in its description should not really be viewed debt; no doubt that sounds pretty obviously wrong to the layman like you and Lisa.
But things are not always what they seem, and I am 100% correct in my assertion as I have conclusively proved by quoting from a recognised textbook written by a well respected professor of finance at one of the top business schools.
The problem here DJack is you are too f*cking stupid and narrow-minded to understand that. [Post edited 18 Dec 2014 9:54]
|  |
| |
| "MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 09:42 - Dec 18 with 2121 views | Shaky |
| "MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 09:23 - Dec 18 by VetchitBack |
Shaky could be a genius or some way short of that.
If my brain ever allows me to penetrate the crushing tedium that is corporate legal speak I'll let everyone know. |
I am out of the city now, so that makes me officially a former financial genius, as the economist JK Galbraith would have put it. | |
| |
| "MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 10:22 - Dec 18 with 2087 views | perchrockjack |
DJack is both right and wrong.
Maybe ,Lisa is trying to help these two unfortunate guys, and they are indeed unfortunate, to have sort of dialaogue without it falling into the sewer.
This is what we expect of second coming- Fans liaison officer in waiting- but Shaky ,to me, is a mystery.
That said,it is now boring and frankly its like kicking an already dog in the ditch. | |
| |
| "MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 11:18 - Dec 18 with 2057 views | perchrockjack |
Im sure there s an extra "m" in there | |
| |
| "MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 11:35 - Dec 18 with 2032 views | sixpenses |
| "MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 11:18 - Dec 18 by perchrockjack |
Im sure there s an extra "m" in there |
Thanks PRJ.
You would think I would be able to spell it after all those trips to the Court of Human Rights | | | |
| "MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 11:37 - Dec 18 with 2027 views | perchrockjack |
You are rather pre empting GFD which is scheduled for 21 st December | |
| |
| (No subject) on 12:47 - Dec 18 with 1977 views | Shaky |
| (No subject) on 11:15 - Dec 18 by sixpenses |
Ha good to see you taking your own advice of living together Shakes. I have said before you are a legend and nothing here belies that for me.
Like Lisa too, although laid back she is most certainly not and good on her for that.
Neither of you are beyond distinct factual inexactitudes to make your point
You remind me of those enormous road building machines going head to head in ever more fruitless conflict
Let us all remember though discrimmination is the land of the lost argument. Though those that give women more leeway are also plowing the same furrow - PRJ  |
You know ordinarily I would take considerable exception to your comments there, but something tells me that the "factual inexactitude" you accuse me of is in fact your own inability to realise that not guilty in a court of law implies neither guilt or innocence.
Now for the sake of your own sanity you really should learn to let these things go. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| (No subject) on 14:31 - Dec 18 with 1937 views | sixpenses |
| (No subject) on 12:47 - Dec 18 by Shaky |
You know ordinarily I would take considerable exception to your comments there, but something tells me that the "factual inexactitude" you accuse me of is in fact your own inability to realise that not guilty in a court of law implies neither guilt or innocence.
Now for the sake of your own sanity you really should learn to let these things go. |
Now now Shakes I agreed with your first point, in the thread. Do you think I would let an obvious simple bit of logic like that trip me up?
Whereas your comment on circumstantial evidence was far from accurate
It was in fairness however the only thing I could think of in balance, although I must admit to skim reading the debt wars et al | | | |
| (No subject) on 14:37 - Dec 18 with 1927 views | Shaky |
| (No subject) on 14:31 - Dec 18 by sixpenses |
Now now Shakes I agreed with your first point, in the thread. Do you think I would let an obvious simple bit of logic like that trip me up?
Whereas your comment on circumstantial evidence was far from accurate
It was in fairness however the only thing I could think of in balance, although I must admit to skim reading the debt wars et al |
Thank you for that clarification. | |
| |
| (No subject) on 08:15 - Dec 19 with 1840 views | DJack |
| (No subject) on 09:40 - Dec 18 by Shaky |
Well it is certainly unusual to see you posting outside the hours of 11pm-3am pissed out of your brain.
The constant that remains is your curious belief that you are in position to dispense authoritative rulings on any matter without providing a shred of reasoning or evidence. No doubt it is the same basis in self-belief (read megalomania) that has enabled you to pen your signature without a hint of shame or self irony.
However, here you might be forgiven for your misplaced self-confidence. After all, my basic argument is that in the context of the current discussions a financial instrument that includes the word debt in its description should not really be viewed debt; no doubt that sounds pretty obviously wrong to the layman like you and Lisa.
But things are not always what they seem, and I am 100% correct in my assertion as I have conclusively proved by quoting from a recognised textbook written by a well respected professor of finance at one of the top business schools.
The problem here DJack is you are too f*cking stupid and narrow-minded to understand that. [Post edited 18 Dec 2014 9:54]
|
Ahhhhhh, Shaky, as ever you are erudite, grandiose AND WRONG.
I've posted at all sorts of different times on various previous incantations of this board. Usually between the hours of 11pm-3am I am in work, sober and not posting on this board. - LYING SHAKY!
Now on to your second paragraph... "megalomania" - is that your reflection in the stream or your stream of unconscious-self talking to you. The irony is that your signature would suggest (I won't assume as I'm not you)that you prefer the Socratic method but the truth is that you love posting "proofs" which either are nothing to do with the actual statements or these are taken out of context. LYING SHAKY, ILLOGICAL SHAKY.
Your third paragraph... Thank you for your potential forgiveness, I wouldn't even elevate myself to the layman level of understanding but what I do understand is that there are a few posters on this board who have shown that they have a financial background ( I trust the veracity of this as they've demonstrated and conducted themselves on this board without a monstrous ego) and they are in general agreement that you're talking crap. LYING SHAKY, NOT VERY(IF AT ALL) QUALIFIED SHAKY.
Your fourth paragraph...I won't do megalomania again as it would be trite. I believe that Lisa has shown that your assertion is incorrect but I will be swayed if either Uxbridge or Jackonicko state that she is incorrect but I suspect that that won't be the case. LYING SHAKY, DELUDED SHAKY.
The final paragraph..."The problem here DJack is you are too f*cking stupid and narrow-minded..." Now then, you may well be right but your assertion,true or otherwise, says a lot more about you than it does of me. SHAKY IS A POOR NOBODY!
I'm not going to become a marionette for you so fill your boots and have the last word... because everyone knows that you have that compulsion.  |  |
| It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan |
| |
| (No subject) on 09:20 - Dec 19 with 1807 views | Shaky |
| (No subject) on 08:15 - Dec 19 by DJack |
Ahhhhhh, Shaky, as ever you are erudite, grandiose AND WRONG.
I've posted at all sorts of different times on various previous incantations of this board. Usually between the hours of 11pm-3am I am in work, sober and not posting on this board. - LYING SHAKY!
Now on to your second paragraph... "megalomania" - is that your reflection in the stream or your stream of unconscious-self talking to you. The irony is that your signature would suggest (I won't assume as I'm not you)that you prefer the Socratic method but the truth is that you love posting "proofs" which either are nothing to do with the actual statements or these are taken out of context. LYING SHAKY, ILLOGICAL SHAKY.
Your third paragraph... Thank you for your potential forgiveness, I wouldn't even elevate myself to the layman level of understanding but what I do understand is that there are a few posters on this board who have shown that they have a financial background ( I trust the veracity of this as they've demonstrated and conducted themselves on this board without a monstrous ego) and they are in general agreement that you're talking crap. LYING SHAKY, NOT VERY(IF AT ALL) QUALIFIED SHAKY.
Your fourth paragraph...I won't do megalomania again as it would be trite. I believe that Lisa has shown that your assertion is incorrect but I will be swayed if either Uxbridge or Jackonicko state that she is incorrect but I suspect that that won't be the case. LYING SHAKY, DELUDED SHAKY.
The final paragraph..."The problem here DJack is you are too f*cking stupid and narrow-minded..." Now then, you may well be right but your assertion,true or otherwise, says a lot more about you than it does of me. SHAKY IS A POOR NOBODY!
I'm not going to become a marionette for you so fill your boots and have the last word... because everyone knows that you have that compulsion. |
So your supposedly rationalist evidence based argument basically boils down to this; LysingLisa, Noclue, the newly proven liar Uxbridge, and sonny boy all say I am wrong therefore it must be so.
Not only is this a laughably obvious example of circular logic, but even assuming their good faith it is the equivalent of asking a bunch of butchers for expert advice on animal surgery.
I'd like to finish on that KO punch line, but I am compelled to come back to this:
" I trust the veracity of this as they've demonstrated and conducted themselves on this board without a monstrous ego"
You believe that a hallmark of the true financial expert is abject modesty and an all-round self-effacing manner?
Hahahahahaahahahahahahahaha. That is easily the funniest thing I have heard all year, and quite possibly this decade. You don't have a f*cking clue. | |
| |
| (No subject) on 09:44 - Dec 19 with 1788 views | _ |
| (No subject) on 09:20 - Dec 19 by Shaky |
So your supposedly rationalist evidence based argument basically boils down to this; LysingLisa, Noclue, the newly proven liar Uxbridge, and sonny boy all say I am wrong therefore it must be so.
Not only is this a laughably obvious example of circular logic, but even assuming their good faith it is the equivalent of asking a bunch of butchers for expert advice on animal surgery.
I'd like to finish on that KO punch line, but I am compelled to come back to this:
" I trust the veracity of this as they've demonstrated and conducted themselves on this board without a monstrous ego"
You believe that a hallmark of the true financial expert is abject modesty and an all-round self-effacing manner?
Hahahahahaahahahahahahahaha. That is easily the funniest thing I have heard all year, and quite possibly this decade. You don't have a f*cking clue. |
I knew you'd come and totally destroy him...
Oh well, expect yet "another" username from him soon.... |  |
| |
| (No subject) on 10:08 - Dec 19 with 1764 views | DJack |
| (No subject) on 09:20 - Dec 19 by Shaky |
So your supposedly rationalist evidence based argument basically boils down to this; LysingLisa, Noclue, the newly proven liar Uxbridge, and sonny boy all say I am wrong therefore it must be so.
Not only is this a laughably obvious example of circular logic, but even assuming their good faith it is the equivalent of asking a bunch of butchers for expert advice on animal surgery.
I'd like to finish on that KO punch line, but I am compelled to come back to this:
" I trust the veracity of this as they've demonstrated and conducted themselves on this board without a monstrous ego"
You believe that a hallmark of the true financial expert is abject modesty and an all-round self-effacing manner?
Hahahahahaahahahahahahahaha. That is easily the funniest thing I have heard all year, and quite possibly this decade. You don't have a f*cking clue. |
"You believe that a hallmark of the true financial expert is abject modesty and an all-round self-effacing manner? "
You are so easy...the answer to your question is NO. Even more so, those that are of the stature you have claimed proudly boast their achievements and don't hide behind anonymity.
You are George Soros's butler and I claim my £5. | |
| It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan |
| |
| (No subject) on 10:22 - Dec 19 with 1749 views | DJack |
| (No subject) on 09:44 - Dec 19 by _ |
I knew you'd come and totally destroy him...
Oh well, expect yet "another" username from him soon.... |
Oh look, an ugly cheerleader! One that looks and acts like a winnit.
Pray tell, what other username I've ever used?... you can't because I never have. I've been on the jackarmy sites for a number of years, you won't remember it all as you piss-off in high dudgeon every so often. I'll still be DJack after you've gone again. | |
| It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan |
| |
| (No subject) on 10:45 - Dec 19 with 1735 views | Uxbridge |
| (No subject) on 09:20 - Dec 19 by Shaky |
So your supposedly rationalist evidence based argument basically boils down to this; LysingLisa, Noclue, the newly proven liar Uxbridge, and sonny boy all say I am wrong therefore it must be so.
Not only is this a laughably obvious example of circular logic, but even assuming their good faith it is the equivalent of asking a bunch of butchers for expert advice on animal surgery.
I'd like to finish on that KO punch line, but I am compelled to come back to this:
" I trust the veracity of this as they've demonstrated and conducted themselves on this board without a monstrous ego"
You believe that a hallmark of the true financial expert is abject modesty and an all-round self-effacing manner?
Hahahahahaahahahahahahahaha. That is easily the funniest thing I have heard all year, and quite possibly this decade. You don't have a f*cking clue. |
Aw bless. |  |
| |
| (No subject) on 11:21 - Dec 19 with 1701 views | Shaky |
| (No subject) on 10:08 - Dec 19 by DJack |
"You believe that a hallmark of the true financial expert is abject modesty and an all-round self-effacing manner? "
You are so easy...the answer to your question is NO. Even more so, those that are of the stature you have claimed proudly boast their achievements and don't hide behind anonymity.
You are George Soros's butler and I claim my £5. |
So let me get this straight: when you made your original statement about how modest financial advisors always are, you were merely laying an elaborate trap for me.
A trap that you have now successfully sprung enabling you to deliver your decisive argument that I should be bragging my name from the rooftops if I really were a pukka financial expert.
This you presumably know due to your total familiarity with the minutely detailed behaviour of all financial experts as a completely homogenous genus, as well as whatever unique personal circumstances I might find myself in, enabling you to predict precisely how any financial expert will react.
Wow.
Your evolution from terse, self-proclaimed champion of rationalism into back street quackery is as shockingly apparent as it is hilarious.
The emperor has no clothes and has revealed himself to be an intellectual maggot. It's really not news to me, however. | |
| |
| "MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 11:25 - Dec 19 with 1697 views | Shaky |
| "MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 23:04 - Dec 16 by jackonicko |
Who knows what his credentials are? He couldn't run away fast enough when it was suggested he put them to use to help the trust. Regardless of what those credentials may be, his credibility was shot to pieces right there, right then.
Shaky's posts are textbook perfect. At times, he even gives us photos of the textbook. But they usually bear no relation to reality.
Personally, I find him amusing. But no more than that. |
For the sake of completeness, let's not forget Noclue originated DJack's argument a few days ago.
Quack-quack. | |
| |
| "MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 12:09 - Dec 19 with 1660 views | jackonicko |
Looks like Shaky needs to revisit his books on mastering Zen. Quite a lot of angry posts here. |  | | |
| "MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 12:16 - Dec 19 with 1650 views | Shaky |
| "MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 12:09 - Dec 19 by jackonicko |
Looks like Shaky needs to revisit his books on mastering Zen. Quite a lot of angry posts here. |
Gimme some examples of that anger, why dontcha?
FWIW, my prevailing mood posting today has been mirth and laughter.
But of course there is always the possibility that your psychological expertise and mindreading skills have granted you the knowledge that's all wrong. Right, swami? | |
| |
| (No subject) on 12:25 - Dec 19 with 1636 views | Shaky |
| "MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 12:09 - Dec 19 by jackonicko |
Looks like Shaky needs to revisit his books on mastering Zen. Quite a lot of angry posts here. |
BTW, Swami Noclue. I just did a quick google route finder on a 1-way trip for me to Swansea:
You think that might have been a factor in my decision not to send my CV in to the Trust? Think hard now: Ommmmmmmmmmmmmmm. | |
| |
| (No subject) on 12:39 - Dec 19 with 1614 views | jackonicko |
| (No subject) on 12:25 - Dec 19 by Shaky |
BTW, Swami Noclue. I just did a quick google route finder on a 1-way trip for me to Swansea:
You think that might have been a factor in my decision not to send my CV in to the Trust? Think hard now: Ommmmmmmmmmmmmmm. |
*looks out of window*
No. Not the Swansea skyline here either. Thankfully e-mail and telephones exist, eh? | | | |
| (No subject) on 12:45 - Dec 19 with 1601 views | Shaky |
| (No subject) on 12:39 - Dec 19 by jackonicko |
*looks out of window*
No. Not the Swansea skyline here either. Thankfully e-mail and telephones exist, eh? |
Don't really have much experience of how this advisory malarkey works in practice, do you Noclue. [Post edited 19 Dec 2014 12:45]
| |
| |
| (No subject) on 12:57 - Dec 19 with 1585 views | jackonicko |
| (No subject) on 12:45 - Dec 19 by Shaky |
Don't really have much experience of how this advisory malarkey works in practice, do you Noclue. [Post edited 19 Dec 2014 12:45]
|
Just so I understand, the reason why you ran away rapidly from the suggestion you put yourself forward is not the myriad of reasons you said at the time, but is now because you're not in Swansea? | | | |
| (No subject) on 12:59 - Dec 19 with 1582 views | Shaky |
| (No subject) on 12:57 - Dec 19 by jackonicko |
Just so I understand, the reason why you ran away rapidly from the suggestion you put yourself forward is not the myriad of reasons you said at the time, but is now because you're not in Swansea? |
Nope. There were many, many factors, only some of which I have mentioned. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
