Go to Villagebet.com.au for free horse racing tips - Click here now
Forum Home Forum Home > All Sports - Public Forums > Joffs All Sports Bar
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - THE  POSTAL VOTE/POLL
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Thoroughbred Village Home Page. For village news, follow @TBVillage on Twitter. For horseracing tips, follow @Villagebet on Twitter. To contact the Mayor by email: Click Here.


THE POSTAL VOTE/POLL

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 5758596061 158>
Author
Message
Redemption View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 09 Apr 2017
Location: Melbourne
Status: Offline
Points: 5387
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Redemption Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Sep 2017 at 8:48pm
F#uck you bullies

Bullying is way way way worse that bloody voting no.

Bullying is killing people.

Go get stuffed.
Back to Top
max manewer View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 31 Jan 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 32947
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote max manewer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Sep 2017 at 8:50pm
Get into 'em redempsey ! So which way are we voting now ?
Back to Top
cabosanlucas View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 15 Jun 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 7363
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote cabosanlucas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Sep 2017 at 8:54pm
Originally posted by Redemption Redemption wrote:

F#uck you bullies

Bullying is way way way worse that bloody voting no.

Bullying is killing people.

Go get stuffed.


onya redempsey! 👍
Back to Top
Whale View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2009
Location: St Kilda Beach
Status: Offline
Points: 38719
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Whale Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Sep 2017 at 8:56pm
Originally posted by Redemption Redemption wrote:

F#uck you bullies

Bullying is way way way worse that bloody voting no.

Bullying is killing people.

Go get stuffed.


go and bomb North Korea Confused
Back to Top
Tlazolteotl View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 02 Oct 2012
Location: Elephant Butte
Status: Offline
Points: 31416
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tlazolteotl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Sep 2017 at 9:09pm
Originally posted by Redemption Redemption wrote:

Ive changed my mind
Im voting NO

Im fed up with supporters trying to bully people who have the democratic right to vote No.
Its a disgrace

They have lost my support.

Jeez what a shock.LOL
Back to Top
Second Chance View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Status: Online
Points: 45716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Second Chance Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Sep 2017 at 9:12pm
Interestingly I agree with Redemption to a significant degree.

Bullying of any kind in this context is worse imo than voting in any way at all, be it yes, no or "informal".
Back to Top
cabosanlucas View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 15 Jun 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 7363
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote cabosanlucas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Sep 2017 at 9:12pm
here's two comments from page 1 on the marr article.

1. Thank goodness that a prominent supporter of SSM has had the guts to finally say this. progressives should own this sentiment proudly, not be mealymouthed about the broader social change we hope SSM is part of and will further. This is about undermining entrenched forms of marginalisation and prejudice in relation to LGBTQ folks. I hope that some version of teaching Safe Schools willfollow. This is not just about marriage and marriage alone, this is about taking on unreasoned bigotry and changing Australian society for the better.

2. Personally, I've got a whole shopping list of stuff I'd love to follow from this. Perhaps less taxpayer dosh spent gilding Catholic schools etc.? It'd also be great to see churches lose charity status, massive tax concessions etc.

yeah...slippery slope is a myth.
Back to Top
Dr E View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 05 Feb 2013
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 28563
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dr E Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Sep 2017 at 9:22pm
Originally posted by ExceedAndExcel ExceedAndExcel wrote:

Originally posted by Dr E Dr E wrote:

Originally posted by ExceedAndExcel ExceedAndExcel wrote:

Originally posted by Dr E Dr E wrote:

Originally posted by Whale Whale wrote:

Originally posted by Dr E Dr E wrote:

Originally posted by Whale Whale wrote:

Originally posted by max manewer max manewer wrote:

A named business does come with existing debts and creditors, if someone just took over the lease of a premises, it becomes murky, but it seems in that case the debt would be unknown to the new lessee. I suppose the new shopkeeper might have been warned about extending credit to Joe Blow, and then pretend to "own" that debt.


<span style="font-size: 13.6px;">Exceed and Excel is correct, depends on the structure of the business.</span>
<br style="font-size: 13.6px;">thanks for your input Max, more pontificating on a subject you know nothing about


It has absolutely nothing to do with the structure of the business, the business could be structured in anyway ... but speaking of knowing nothing, not bad for an uneducated guess!Wacko


wrong, it has to do with the structure of the business in regards to the ease of determining and separating the amounts from the sale of the main business but also more to do with the agreement between the parties as to the form of the sale.

I don't think your orange juice stand by the side of the road qualifies as a real business Confused


Hey Whale ... you said that you know, was due to your own experience of selling your business, right!?

You do know that having a liquidator appointed isn't "selling your business" LOL

Once again, the structure of the business has absolutely no bearing on the ability to sell assets .[B/].. ask the Official Receiver Office, who "sold" your business for you!Wink 




You seem to be having a little trouble with comprehension. The discussion was on what happens when an OWNER sells a business NOT the ability of a BUSINESS to sell its assets. Two completely different things.

What are the rights of an owner of a publicly listed company to the receivables/payables of that business when they decide to sell? None.
What are the rights of the owner of a sole trader to the receivables/payables when they decide to sell the business? It depends on how the sale is negotiated.

Two different business structures with two different ways of treating receivables/payables on the sale of said business. End of discussion.


<span style="font-size: 13.6px;">Whale said "Exceed and Excel is correct, depends on the structure of the business."</span><br style="font-size: 13.6px;">
<span style="font-size: 13.6px;">
</span>
<span style="font-size: 13.6px;">The debts of a business are an </span>asset<span style="font-size: 13.6px;">. They can be sold with the business or not, or sold independently, as often happens. Structure has no bearing on that. If those debts are legally binding and </span>provable<span style="font-size: 13.6px;"> and assignable, they may be worth more than the entity is as a going concern, and can be sold, if someone is interested in buying them. The "owner" of a solvent publicly listed company are the shareholders, and they have the right to vote on a special resolution to sell any asset, if such a resolution is moved.</span>
<span style="font-size: 13.6px;">
</span>
<span style="font-size: 13.6px;">Debt Collectors, Mercantile Agencies and Factoring companies make a living "buying" debt from ALL forms of business at a discounted face value, and the recovering the money. </span>
<span style="font-size: 13.6px;">
</span>
<span style="font-size: 13.6px;">Happy to discuss further if you wish ... always be fearful if Whale is in agreement with you!Embarrassed</span>





Your comprehension skills appear not to have improved. Suggest you ask someone to explain it to you so you can understand.

It is irrelevant to this discussion that shareholders can vote to sell an asset. We are talking about what happens when an owner sells their business. What happens will depend on the structure of the business. A shareholder of a limited liability company has no right to take part or all of the net receivables with him when they sell. This is basic stuff. If you don't believe me then next time you go to sell some shares take me along as you storm into the board room demanding to be given your share of net receivables. I'll be happy to roll around the floor laughing with the rest of the board members.

 
E&E ... that is a stupid statement to start with, and of course, NOT what Whale was arguing with me ... if it was, he didn't realise it! He was arguing that the structure of a company determined whether the receivables/debts could be sold ... which is of course wrong.

However, if a shareholder is dissatisfied with any of the terms of a sale, say he felt the value of an asset was not taken into proper account, he is entitled to apply for an injunction if he feels that he has legal grounds to argue ... roll on the ground laughing about that if you likeWink
In reference to every post in the Trump thread ... "There may have been a tiny bit of license taken there" ... Ok, Thanks for the "heads up" PT!
Back to Top
cabosanlucas View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 15 Jun 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 7363
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote cabosanlucas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Sep 2017 at 9:49pm
marxist ratbaggery 101 -

the 🏳️‍🌈wavers are calling on a boycott of woolworths over comments made by someone who left the company 10 years ago.



Back to Top
oneonesit View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 06 Aug 2012
Status: Online
Points: 37159
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oneonesit Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Sep 2017 at 9:54pm
Originally posted by Dr E Dr E wrote:

Originally posted by ExceedAndExcel ExceedAndExcel wrote:

Originally posted by Dr E Dr E wrote:

Originally posted by ExceedAndExcel ExceedAndExcel wrote:

Originally posted by Dr E Dr E wrote:

Originally posted by Whale Whale wrote:

Originally posted by Dr E Dr E wrote:

Originally posted by Whale Whale wrote:

Originally posted by max manewer max manewer wrote:

A named business does come with existing debts and creditors, if someone just took over the lease of a premises, it becomes murky, but it seems in that case the debt would be unknown to the new lessee. I suppose the new shopkeeper might have been warned about extending credit to Joe Blow, and then pretend to "own" that debt.


<span style="font-size: 13.6px;">Exceed and Excel is correct, depends on the structure of the business.</span>
<br style="font-size: 13.6px;">thanks for your input Max, more pontificating on a subject you know nothing about


It has absolutely nothing to do with the structure of the business, the business could be structured in anyway ... but speaking of knowing nothing, not bad for an uneducated guess!Wacko


wrong, it has to do with the structure of the business in regards to the ease of determining and separating the amounts from the sale of the main business but also more to do with the agreement between the parties as to the form of the sale.

I don't think your orange juice stand by the side of the road qualifies as a real business Confused


Hey Whale ... you said that you know, was due to your own experience of selling your business, right!?

You do know that having a liquidator appointed isn't "selling your business" LOL

Once again, the structure of the business has absolutely no bearing on the ability to sell assets .[B/].. ask the Official Receiver Office, who "sold" your business for you!Wink 




You seem to be having a little trouble with comprehension. The discussion was on what happens when an OWNER sells a business NOT the ability of a BUSINESS to sell its assets. Two completely different things.

What are the rights of an owner of a publicly listed company to the receivables/payables of that business when they decide to sell? None.
What are the rights of the owner of a sole trader to the receivables/payables when they decide to sell the business? It depends on how the sale is negotiated.

Two different business structures with two different ways of treating receivables/payables on the sale of said business. End of discussion.


<span style="font-size: 13.6px;">Whale said "Exceed and Excel is correct, depends on the structure of the business."</span><br style="font-size: 13.6px;">
<span style="font-size: 13.6px;">
</span>
<span style="font-size: 13.6px;">The debts of a business are an </span>asset<span style="font-size: 13.6px;">. They can be sold with the business or not, or sold independently, as often happens. Structure has no bearing on that. If those debts are legally binding and </span>provable<span style="font-size: 13.6px;"> and assignable, they may be worth more than the entity is as a going concern, and can be sold, if someone is interested in buying them. The "owner" of a solvent publicly listed company are the shareholders, and they have the right to vote on a special resolution to sell any asset, if such a resolution is moved.</span>
<span style="font-size: 13.6px;">
</span>
<span style="font-size: 13.6px;">Debt Collectors, Mercantile Agencies and Factoring companies make a living "buying" debt from ALL forms of business at a discounted face value, and the recovering the money. </span>
<span style="font-size: 13.6px;">
</span>
<span style="font-size: 13.6px;">Happy to discuss further if you wish ... always be fearful if Whale is in agreement with you!Embarrassed</span>





Your comprehension skills appear not to have improved. Suggest you ask someone to explain it to you so you can understand.

It is irrelevant to this discussion that shareholders can vote to sell an asset. We are talking about what happens when an owner sells their business. What happens will depend on the structure of the business. A shareholder of a limited liability company has no right to take part or all of the net receivables with him when they sell. This is basic stuff. If you don't believe me then next time you go to sell some shares take me along as you storm into the board room demanding to be given your share of net receivables. I'll be happy to roll around the floor laughing with the rest of the board members.

 
E&E ... that is a stupid statement to start with, and of course, NOT what Whale was arguing with me ... if it was, he didn't realise it! He was arguing that the structure of a company determined whether the receivables/debts could be sold ... which is of course wrong.

However, if a shareholder is dissatisfied with any of the terms of a sale, say he felt the value of an asset was not taken into proper account, he is entitled to apply for an injunction if he feels that he has legal grounds to argue ... roll on the ground laughing about that if you likeWink
I fear this post could end up even longer then E&E's post in the NRL thread Ouch
Refer ALP Election Promises
Back to Top
Second Chance View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Status: Online
Points: 45716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Second Chance Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Sep 2017 at 9:55pm
Would have to agree.

Why carry all this stuff forward, post after post?
Back to Top
max manewer View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 31 Jan 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 32947
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote max manewer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Sep 2017 at 10:19pm
Originally posted by cabosanlucas cabosanlucas wrote:

marxist ratbaggery 101 -

the 🏳️‍🌈wavers are calling on a boycott of woolworths over comments made by someone who left the company 10 years ago.



Woolworths seems to have some dopey management, first the Masters debacle, now falling over themselves to get involved in a divisive campaign. That won't increase business.
Back to Top
Whale View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2009
Location: St Kilda Beach
Status: Offline
Points: 38719
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Whale Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Sep 2017 at 10:20pm



 happy to roll around the floor laughing with the rest of the board members. [/QUOTE]

 
E&E ... that is a stupid statement to start with, and of course, NOT what Whale was arguing with me ... if it was, he didn't realise it! He was arguing that the structure of a company determined whether the receivables/debts could be sold ... which is of course wrong.

However, if a shareholder is dissatisfied with any of the terms of a sale, say he felt the value of an asset was not taken into proper account, he is entitled to apply for an injunction if he feels that he has legal grounds to argue ... roll on the ground laughing about that if you likeWink
[/QUOTE]

wrong and I was basically correcting Max's ignorant assertion that the debts of the corner business must have been sold to the new owner Confused

I see you are lying again, it is a NO vote or a no vote for you, that is the only thing you are undecided about
Back to Top
stayer View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 21897
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote stayer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Sep 2017 at 10:26pm
Originally posted by Newtown Old Boy Newtown Old Boy wrote:

Originally posted by ExceedAndExcel ExceedAndExcel wrote:

How many of these 1.2b alleged Catholics actually practice? Attend church regularly? Follow the teachings to the letter? Much less I would suggest.


This is the bit I struggle with about religion. Why have they diluted the true teachings from the Bible over the years? Is it to bring the religion in line with modern standards? Just smacks of hypocrisy.

Yep.
Back to Top
maccamax View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 41473
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote maccamax Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Sep 2017 at 10:29pm
Originally posted by Second Chance Second Chance wrote:

Interestingly I agree with Redemption to a significant degree.

Bullying of any kind in this context is worse imo than voting in any way at all, be it yes, no or "informal".



I know you are going to vote NO .   You show too much sense to vote otherwise.     Besides , You wouldn't like to see me in the hands of some Ravenous Male would you.       
Back to Top
stayer View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 21897
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote stayer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Sep 2017 at 10:30pm
Originally posted by max manewer max manewer wrote:

Not a scam, just a straying from the original source. As I say, the "GOLDEN RULE", which is a teaching based on what scientists and sages both agree, that "MULTIPLICITY IS ONLY APPARENT". It is only wilfulness that blinds us to it.

Back to Top
stayer View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 21897
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote stayer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Sep 2017 at 10:35pm
Originally posted by max manewer max manewer wrote:

Originally posted by Passing Through Passing Through wrote:

But the do unto others Golden Rule doesn't apply in the case of human rights where marriage is concerned? Some are less equal?

The Golden Rule does not imply just giving people what they demand. It does imply doing what is for the common or greater good, regardless of whether you are personally better or worse off, as a result.

again. (Sorry just skimming through)
Back to Top
stayer View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 21897
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote stayer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Sep 2017 at 10:39pm
Originally posted by Tlazolteotl Tlazolteotl wrote:

Marxism is public ownership and control of the means of production. Anything less than that is not Marxism. Cultural Marxism is of course not Marxism but an invention of the far right to disparage any form of progressivism.

No it was originally a disparaging term by fellow marxists.
Back to Top
stayer View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 21897
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote stayer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Sep 2017 at 10:43pm
Originally posted by Passing Through Passing Through wrote:

Originally posted by cabosanlucas cabosanlucas wrote:

david marr continues with his fascination with the CC.

he thinks this debate is gays v the catholic church.






Isn't it? Confused

Back to Top
stayer View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 21897
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote stayer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Sep 2017 at 10:48pm
Originally posted by Second Chance Second Chance wrote:

Originally posted by Shrunk in the Wash Shrunk in the Wash wrote:

A bit if a dilemma fir the SSM

"IMAMS and Islamic leaders are ramping up a campaign against same-sex marriage, using their sermons in mosques across Australia to urge the Muslim community"


Presumably Shrunk among others finds the above allegation important in respect of spokespersons who seek to speak for about 2.2% of the Australian population.

So you racially or religiously concerned worriers/warriors, what's the go here with the the other minority religious or non religious groups in our society, ie Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Atheism, Non-religion etc?  

Or is the answer to the above rather less than important than attempting for some misbegotten reason to target one particular ethnic/religious sector of the Australian community in this debate?

You mean catholics?
Back to Top
Tlazolteotl View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 02 Oct 2012
Location: Elephant Butte
Status: Offline
Points: 31416
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tlazolteotl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Sep 2017 at 10:54pm
Originally posted by stayer stayer wrote:

Originally posted by Tlazolteotl Tlazolteotl wrote:

Marxism is public ownership and control of the means of production. Anything less than that is not Marxism. Cultural Marxism is of course not Marxism but an invention of the far right to disparage any form of progressivism.

No it was originally a disparaging term by fellow marxists.

Origin

The term “cultural Marxism” is believed to have been coined by American sociology professor Trent Schroyer in his 1973 The Critique of Domination: The Origins and Development of Critical Theory, in which the author identifies the Frankfurt School’s critical theory, a school of thought focusing on reflective assessment and cultural critique through application of social sciences, as the origin of a “culture industry” that imposes “socially unnecessary constraints of human freedom” and ultimately, the social domination of the individual.

“As advanced industrial societies developed, the individual was more integrated into and dependent upon the collectivity and less able to utilize society for active self-expression.”

In the following decades, Schroyer’s critique of the Frankfurt School as the origin of postwar liberal agendas and destruction of individualism was further expounded upon by other mainstream academics, most notably Richard Weiner’s Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology (1981) and Michael Minnicino’s New Dark Age: Frankfurt School and ‘Political Correctness’ (1992).

< allowfullscreen="true" scrolling="no" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border-width: initial; border-style: none; outline: 0px; font-size: 10px; vertical-align: line; -: initial; -: initial; -size: initial; -repeat: initial; -attachment: initial; -origin: initial; -clip: initial; clear: both; display: block; text-align: center; max-width: 100%; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; overflow: ; width: 0px; height: 49px; visibility: !imant; min-width: 150px !imant; min-height: 25px !imant;">

Spread

However, during the late 1990s, the meaning behind “cultural Marxism” became increasingly diluted and detached from its original context as many right-wing and neoconservative commentators, such as William S. Lind and Pat Buchanan, began using the term as a catch-all for left-wing cultural criticism in their commentaries. During the first half of the 2000s, this trend continued to gradually spread across other conservative think tanks, most notably the Schiller Institute.


http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/cultural-marxism


Back to Top
Whale View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2009
Location: St Kilda Beach
Status: Offline
Points: 38719
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Whale Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Sep 2017 at 12:37am
Originally posted by max manewer max manewer wrote:

I read the bible (a little bit, anyway) and it says not to place your faith in the son of man. That rules all youse galahs out !


Pascal's Wager
Back to Top
stayer View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 21897
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote stayer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Sep 2017 at 12:49am
Back to Top
cabosanlucas View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 15 Jun 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 7363
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote cabosanlucas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Sep 2017 at 12:52am
Back to Top
Dr E View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 05 Feb 2013
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 28563
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dr E Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Sep 2017 at 2:00am
Originally posted by Second Chance Second Chance wrote:

Would have to agree.

Why carry all this stuff forward, post after post?
for continuity of message.
In reference to every post in the Trump thread ... "There may have been a tiny bit of license taken there" ... Ok, Thanks for the "heads up" PT!
Back to Top
Dr E View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 05 Feb 2013
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 28563
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dr E Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Sep 2017 at 2:02am
[[/QUOTE] I fear this post could end up even longer then E&E's post in the NRL thread Ouch[/QUOTE]

Hahaha! ... no, don't worry, I'm not giving Whale anymore free legal advice!Wink
In reference to every post in the Trump thread ... "There may have been a tiny bit of license taken there" ... Ok, Thanks for the "heads up" PT!
Back to Top
Dr E View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 05 Feb 2013
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 28563
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dr E Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Sep 2017 at 2:03am
^ ... see what I mean Second Chance ... makes no sense does it?Tongue
In reference to every post in the Trump thread ... "There may have been a tiny bit of license taken there" ... Ok, Thanks for the "heads up" PT!
Back to Top
Dr E View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 05 Feb 2013
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 28563
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Dr E Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Sep 2017 at 2:09am
Originally posted by Whale Whale wrote:




 happy to roll around the floor laughing with the rest of the board members.

 
E&E ... that is a stupid statement to start with, and of course, NOT what Whale was arguing with me ... if it was, he didn't realise it! He was arguing that the structure of a company determined whether the receivables/debts could be sold ... which is of course wrong.

However, if a shareholder is dissatisfied with any of the terms of a sale, say he felt the value of an asset was not taken into proper account, he is entitled to apply for an injunction if he feels that he has legal grounds to argue ... roll on the ground laughing about that if you likeWink
[/QUOTE]

wrong and I was basically correcting Max's ignorant assertion that the debts of the corner business must have been sold to the new owner Confused

I see you are lying again, it is a NO vote or a no vote for you, that is the only thing you are undecided about
[/QUOTE]
In reference to every post in the Trump thread ... "There may have been a tiny bit of license taken there" ... Ok, Thanks for the "heads up" PT!
Back to Top
maccamax View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 41473
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote maccamax Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Sep 2017 at 2:23am
Whale has been wounded.    . So show pity.
He is suffering the price for deserting the ship in favour of PT's chip on shoulder re Donald Trump POTUS>
    Things will get worse as their previous victim ( Terrific Tony Abbott )) is on the comeback trail. ( later this year a spill )
Surprisingly , the numbers have changed dramatically in his favour.
A bigger shock is the nose dive in the YES vote popularity. Poll.
Still hot fav. with the bookies though. $1.35 = $3.00
Back to Top
Dr E View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 05 Feb 2013
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 28563
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dr E Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Sep 2017 at 4:21am
macca, you and i and those who have taken notice, know that the SSM debate has been hijacked by the militant extremists of the left ... and now the the rest of the community is just starting to realise it.Stern Smile

They can now see evidence of that every night on the news (even on Channel 2!) and understand that a YES vote is a reward for arrogance, intolerance, bigotry, and hate speech against the majority of the population ... and accordingly many who were originally going with the flow, have had enough of the gelati from the freaks and geeks (and those who have sadly been brain washed) and are now simply arching up against the Marxists, and are at least undecided if not NO.Thumbs Down

What these unhinged out of touch ratbags forget is that the law is what it is, the onus is on THEM to make an argument to change the law, it is most certainly NOT a right.Cool
In reference to every post in the Trump thread ... "There may have been a tiny bit of license taken there" ... Ok, Thanks for the "heads up" PT!
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 5758596061 158>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.05
Copyright ©2001-2022 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.250 seconds.