Swansea have the 19th Highest Wage Bill In Europe!!?!

Swansea board to take them to the next level http://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/s ... -c4nts!/#7

What a happy lot #shaftedbytheirown

Of course they are not happy, their old owners have gone behind their back and sold the club there is now major uncertainty. Not sure what your point is?

So your facts have no evid nice to support them? How can any statement of fact stand for itself if there is no evidence of it being made? So you believe if you state something it must automatically be accepted as fact by other posters?

Evidence is always the quality assurance of proof! Do you have evidence for assertions? If not they are not facts! That is widely recognised as the burden of proof! Do you not agree?

My facts have every quality assured proof you could wish to have hence it is a commonly known fact. No, I never have proof of assertions, so try to not make them. Do I agree what? That if someone wants to prove something to someone that the burden of proof is on them? Yes absolutely. But I don't think I have ever tried to convince you have I? I have been clear of the factual commonly known statement and stated that it is completely up to you whether to accept said obvious commonly known fact or not. It is your opinion that it will affect the quality of, not mine

Where is your proof then?
You have repeatedly asked for gents football debate on this thread. If you say this is what the trust chairman has stated, where is the evidence?

I can only assume you are making it up! In other word you are bullshitting!

So your facts have no evid nice to support them? How can any statement of fact stand for itself if there is no evidence of it being made? So you believe if you state something it must automatically be accepted as fact by other posters?

Evidence is always the quality assurance of proof! Do you have evidence for assertions? If not they are not facts! That is widely recognised as the burden of proof! Do you not agree?

My facts have every quality assured proof you could wish to have hence it is a commonly known fact. No, I never have proof of assertions, so try to not make them. Do I agree what? That if someone wants to prove something to someone that the burden of proof is on them? Yes absolutely. But I don't think I have ever tried to convince you have I? I have been clear of the factual commonly known statement and stated that it is completely up to you whether to accept said obvious commonly known fact or not. It is your opinion that it will affect the quality of, not mine

Where is your proof then?
You have repeatedly asked for gents football debate on this thread. If you say this is what the trust chairman has stated, where is the evidence?

I can only assume you are making it up! In other word you are bullshitting!

Yes football debate is most welcome, far better than all that tittle tattle. My evidence? I have not felt the need to prepare a case, I have no need to as it is common knowledge. I know for a fact that Gordon Ramsey bought a Ferrari too, although I haven't compiled evidence on that either simply because it is common knowledge and something I know to be a fact, so there is no need. You are more than welcome to assume anything you like as I have stated, it is your opinion that will be impacted negatively in terms of quality as opposed to my fact based statement. Feel free

So your facts have no evid nice to support them? How can any statement of fact stand for itself if there is no evidence of it being made? So you believe if you state something it must automatically be accepted as fact by other posters?

Evidence is always the quality assurance of proof! Do you have evidence for assertions? If not they are not facts! That is widely recognised as the burden of proof! Do you not agree?

My facts have every quality assured proof you could wish to have hence it is a commonly known fact. No, I never have proof of assertions, so try to not make them. Do I agree what? That if someone wants to prove something to someone that the burden of proof is on them? Yes absolutely. But I don't think I have ever tried to convince you have I? I have been clear of the factual commonly known statement and stated that it is completely up to you whether to accept said obvious commonly known fact or not. It is your opinion that it will affect the quality of, not mine

Where is your proof then?
You have repeatedly asked for gents football debate on this thread. If you say this is what the trust chairman has stated, where is the evidence?

I can only assume you are making it up! In other word you are bullshitting!

Of course he's making it up. I've just read the thread from start to finish (God knows why) and he's contradicted himself several times. Facts, opinions, common knowledge, some very blurred lines from this bullshitter.

You cannot make up a fact, it is already a fact.

Do not get all angry because my facts are raining on your drama parade.

So your facts have no evid nice to support them? How can any statement of fact stand for itself if there is no evidence of it being made? So you believe if you state something it must automatically be accepted as fact by other posters?

Evidence is always the quality assurance of proof! Do you have evidence for assertions? If not they are not facts! That is widely recognised as the burden of proof! Do you not agree?

My facts have every quality assured proof you could wish to have hence it is a commonly known fact. No, I never have proof of assertions, so try to not make them. Do I agree what? That if someone wants to prove something to someone that the burden of proof is on them? Yes absolutely. But I don't think I have ever tried to convince you have I? I have been clear of the factual commonly known statement and stated that it is completely up to you whether to accept said obvious commonly known fact or not. It is your opinion that it will affect the quality of, not mine

Where is your proof then?
You have repeatedly asked for gents football debate on this thread. If you say this is what the trust chairman has stated, where is the evidence?

I can only assume you are making it up! In other word you are bullshitting!

Yes football debate is most welcome, far better than all that tittle tattle. My evidence? I have not felt the need to prepare a case, I have no need to as it is common knowledge. I know for a fact that Gordon Ramsey bought a Ferrari too, although I haven't compiled evidence on that either simply because it is common knowledge and something I know to be a fact, so there is no need. You are more than welcome to assume anything you like as I have stated, it is your opinion that will be impacted negatively in terms of quality as opposed to my fact based statement. Feel free

You made a very succinct statement about a statement by the chairmen of the Seansea Spporters Trustyou use as evidence for the authority of the trust with regard to influencing the future of the club. Yet it is evident you can provide no evidence of this confident statement by the chairman. Yet apparently it is common knowledege but it cannot be evidenced, but you have made a fact based statement without any evidence of fact.
This is hailaroius! Do you perform a comedy act?
Surely a fact has evidence to support it? Or have you introduced a unique view of the scientific method?

Afraid every time Roathie posts he makes himself look a bigger fool. He insists on proof of facts, but we should take his word as gospel because he says so. He will not provide proof or links as it does not exist. Everyone reading this topic apart from Roathie can see what a complete idiot he is making of himself/

Afraid every time Roathie posts he makes himself look a bigger fool. He insists on proof of facts, but we should take his word as gospel because he says so. He will not provide proof or links as it does not exist. Everyone reading this topic apart from Roathie can see what a complete idiot he is making of himself/

Cirrect

So your facts have no evid nice to support them? How can any statement of fact stand for itself if there is no evidence of it being made? So you believe if you state something it must automatically be accepted as fact by other posters?

Evidence is always the quality assurance of proof! Do you have evidence for assertions? If not they are not facts! That is widely recognised as the burden of proof! Do you not agree?

My facts have every quality assured proof you could wish to have hence it is a commonly known fact. No, I never have proof of assertions, so try to not make them. Do I agree what? That if someone wants to prove something to someone that the burden of proof is on them? Yes absolutely. But I don't think I have ever tried to convince you have I? I have been clear of the factual commonly known statement and stated that it is completely up to you whether to accept said obvious commonly known fact or not. It is your opinion that it will affect the quality of, not mine

Where is your proof then?
You have repeatedly asked for gents football debate on this thread. If you say this is what the trust chairman has stated, where is the evidence?

I can only assume you are making it up! In other word you are bullshitting!

Yes football debate is most welcome, far better than all that tittle tattle. My evidence? I have not felt the need to prepare a case, I have no need to as it is common knowledge. I know for a fact that Gordon Ramsey bought a Ferrari too, although I haven't compiled evidence on that either simply because it is common knowledge and something I know to be a fact, so there is no need. You are more than welcome to assume anything you like as I have stated, it is your opinion that will be impacted negatively in terms of quality as opposed to my fact based statement. Feel free

You made a very succinct statement about a statement by the chairmen of the Seansea Spporters Trustyou use as evidence for the authority of the trust with regard to influencing the future of the club. Yet it is evident you can provide no evidence of this confident statement by the chairman. Yet apparently it is common knowledege but it cannot be evidenced, but you have made a fact based statement without any evidence of fact.
This is hailaroius! Do you perform a comedy act?
Surely a fact has evidence to support it? Or have you introduced a unique view of the scientific method?

Where is your evidence that I used that statement for the authority of the trust with regard to influencing the future of the club? I stated it as a fact as to why they may not be seeking legal action now. Assumptions are continuing to let your view down.
Where does it say I cannot provide evidence? Surely it would be more accurate to say that I have refused to? Just as I refused to provide evidence of the fact Gordon Ramsey owns a Ferrari. I have no need to do either do I? Unless you believe that my goal is for you to trust both points? A fact certainly does have evidence to support it, can you point to where I have said there isn't any? That will be an interesting read.

Afraid every time Roathie posts he makes himself look a bigger fool. He insists on proof of facts, but we should take his word as gospel because he says so. He will not provide proof or links as it does not exist. Everyone reading this topic apart from Roathie can see what a complete idiot he is making of himself/

As long as I am a correct idiot then thats all that matters in a factual debate, and thankfully I am. What would you offer me to provide you evidence? Make it worth my while and I may just do it

The fabulous Swansea trust a club well run by the fans, we were having spouted a year or so ago....

http://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/s ... around/#38. Wrong again #shaftedbyupyourown

A year or so ago, Jenkins this Jenkins that

The trust this the trust that

105 posts in 4 days, following the usual format. Only a matter of time before he is banned, hope it is before he ruins what had become a tidy forum.

The fabulous Swansea trust a club well run by the fans, we were having spouted a year or so ago....

http://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/s ... around/#38. Wrong again #shaftedbyupyourown

A year or so ago, Jenkins this Jenkins that

The trust this the trust that

Struggling to see your point again here? Who has said it is an ideal situation. It is common knowledge that the old shareholders shafted the fans (I am not going to provide evidence of this either btw).

105 posts in 4 days, following the usual format. Only a matter of time before he is banned, hope it is before he ruins what had become a tidy forum.

Usual format of posting facts and sensible opinion and not stooping to insults? Wow he sounds like he was a top poster and proud to follow. #107

So your facts have no evid nice to support them? How can any statement of fact stand for itself if there is no evidence of it being made? So you believe if you state something it must automatically be accepted as fact by other posters?

Evidence is always the quality assurance of proof! Do you have evidence for assertions? If not they are not facts! That is widely recognised as the burden of proof! Do you not agree?

My facts have every quality assured proof you could wish to have hence it is a commonly known fact. No, I never have proof of assertions, so try to not make them. Do I agree what? That if someone wants to prove something to someone that the burden of proof is on them? Yes absolutely. But I don't think I have ever tried to convince you have I? I have been clear of the factual commonly known statement and stated that it is completely up to you whether to accept said obvious commonly known fact or not. It is your opinion that it will affect the quality of, not mine

Where is your proof then?
You have repeatedly asked for gents football debate on this thread. If you say this is what the trust chairman has stated, where is the evidence?

I can only assume you are making it up! In other word you are bullshitting!

Yes football debate is most welcome, far better than all that tittle tattle. My evidence? I have not felt the need to prepare a case, I have no need to as it is common knowledge. I know for a fact that Gordon Ramsey bought a Ferrari too, although I haven't compiled evidence on that either simply because it is common knowledge and something I know to be a fact, so there is no need. You are more than welcome to assume anything you like as I have stated, it is your opinion that will be impacted negatively in terms of quality as opposed to my fact based statement. Feel free

You made a very succinct statement about a statement by the chairmen of the Seansea Spporters Trustyou use as evidence for the authority of the trust with regard to influencing the future of the club. Yet it is evident you can provide no evidence of this confident statement by the chairman. Yet apparently it is common knowledege but it cannot be evidenced, but you have made a fact based statement without any evidence of fact.
This is hailaroius! Do you perform a comedy act?
Surely a fact has evidence to support it? Or have you introduced a unique view of the scientific method?

Where is your evidence that I used that statement for the authority of the trust with regard to influencing the future of the club? I stated it as a fact as to why they may not be seeking legal action now. Assumptions are continuing to let your view down.
Where does it say I cannot provide evidence? Surely it would be more accurate to say that I have refused to? Just as I refused to provide evidence of the fact Gordon Ramsey owns a Ferrari. I have no need to do either do I? Unless you believe that my goal is for you to trust both points? A fact certainly does have evidence to support it, can you point to where I have said there isn't any? That will be an interesting read.

You have provide no evid nice to support your statement about the chairman of the Supporters' Trust saying that relationships with the current majority shareholders. A claim you issued as a statement of fact! Obviously, from your lack of evidence to support this statement we must as logical people presume this is false. Or as scientists would say unproven!

Not interested in Ramsey's car ownership but very interested in the proof of statements by the Swansea Supporters TrustCan you provide evidence to undermine my assumptions?

So your facts have no evid nice to support them? How can any statement of fact stand for itself if there is no evidence of it being made? So you believe if you state something it must automatically be accepted as fact by other posters?

Evidence is always the quality assurance of proof! Do you have evidence for assertions? If not they are not facts! That is widely recognised as the burden of proof! Do you not agree?

My facts have every quality assured proof you could wish to have hence it is a commonly known fact. No, I never have proof of assertions, so try to not make them. Do I agree what? That if someone wants to prove something to someone that the burden of proof is on them? Yes absolutely. But I don't think I have ever tried to convince you have I? I have been clear of the factual commonly known statement and stated that it is completely up to you whether to accept said obvious commonly known fact or not. It is your opinion that it will affect the quality of, not mine

Where is your proof then?
You have repeatedly asked for gents football debate on this thread. If you say this is what the trust chairman has stated, where is the evidence?

I can only assume you are making it up! In other word you are bullshitting!

Yes football debate is most welcome, far better than all that tittle tattle. My evidence? I have not felt the need to prepare a case, I have no need to as it is common knowledge. I know for a fact that Gordon Ramsey bought a Ferrari too, although I haven't compiled evidence on that either simply because it is common knowledge and something I know to be a fact, so there is no need. You are more than welcome to assume anything you like as I have stated, it is your opinion that will be impacted negatively in terms of quality as opposed to my fact based statement. Feel free

You made a very succinct statement about a statement by the chairmen of the Seansea Spporters Trustyou use as evidence for the authority of the trust with regard to influencing the future of the club. Yet it is evident you can provide no evidence of this confident statement by the chairman. Yet apparently it is common knowledege but it cannot be evidenced, but you have made a fact based statement without any evidence of fact.
This is hailaroius! Do you perform a comedy act?
Surely a fact has evidence to support it? Or have you introduced a unique view of the scientific method?

Where is your evidence that I used that statement for the authority of the trust with regard to influencing the future of the club? I stated it as a fact as to why they may not be seeking legal action now. Assumptions are continuing to let your view down.
Where does it say I cannot provide evidence? Surely it would be more accurate to say that I have refused to? Just as I refused to provide evidence of the fact Gordon Ramsey owns a Ferrari. I have no need to do either do I? Unless you believe that my goal is for you to trust both points? A fact certainly does have evidence to support it, can you point to where I have said there isn't any? That will be an interesting read.

You have provide no evid nice to support your statement about the chairman of the Supporters' Trust saying that relationships with the current majority shareholders. A claim you issued as a statement of fact! Obviously, from your lack of evidence to support this statement we must as logical people presume this is false. Or as scientists would say unproven!

Not interested in Ramsey's car ownership but very interested in the proof of statements by the Swansea Supporters TrustCan you provide evidence to undermine my assumptions?

I have not said I would provide evidence, I have no need to, it is common knowledge. It is a statement of fact and I reiterate that, a complete total and utter fact at that. There is no lack of evidence on my part, I have first hand evidence as I know it to be a fact, you have a lack of evidence which is of course an entirely different thing. As I have told you, you may now make an assumption that the commonly known fact is not true but that is your opinion that will as a result have a quality issue.

I dont have an interest in if you are interested in Ramseys, the factual Chairmans statement, fishing, superbikes or cats. So why would I feel the need to provide you an array of evidence based on what you are interested in? What do you have to offer me in order to provide you the service? Make it worth my while and I will then go out of my way to provide you with what you need. What you offering?

Last edited by Capitano on Thu Jan 19, 2017 9:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The fabulous Swansea trust a club well run by the fans, we were having spouted a year or so ago....

http://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/s ... around/#38. Wrong again #shaftedbyupyourown

A year or so ago, Jenkins this Jenkins that

The trust this the trust that

Struggling to see your point again here? Who has said it is an ideal situation. It is common knowledge that the old shareholders shafted the fans (I am not going to provide evidence of this either btw).

Read the thread, and you may learn that like all of them on there you know feck all

12 months ago some didn't know he was a greedy slimy c*nt........we do now.

12 months ago you were spouting your usual shit about they could never sell the club, you were wrong

Read the thread, and you may learn that like all of them on there you know feck all

12 months ago some didn't know he was a greedy slimy c*nt........we do now.

12 months ago you were spouting your usual shit about they could never sell the club, you were wrong

You are not making much sense. We all know what we know, what is in the public domain we know. That is what we are discussing. Where did I say they couldn't sell the club? And who is "they"?

Where's the money gone http://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/s ... e-world/#7. good old Jenkins

Where's the money gone http://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/s ... e-world/#7. good old Jenkins

I have no idea what you are doing Im afraid? Are you asking me something?

So your facts have no evid nice to support them? How can any statement of fact stand for itself if there is no evidence of it being made? So you believe if you state something it must automatically be accepted as fact by other posters?

Evidence is always the quality assurance of proof! Do you have evidence for assertions? If not they are not facts! That is widely recognised as the burden of proof! Do you not agree?

My facts have every quality assured proof you could wish to have hence it is a commonly known fact. No, I never have proof of assertions, so try to not make them. Do I agree what? That if someone wants to prove something to someone that the burden of proof is on them? Yes absolutely. But I don't think I have ever tried to convince you have I? I have been clear of the factual commonly known statement and stated that it is completely up to you whether to accept said obvious commonly known fact or not. It is your opinion that it will affect the quality of, not mine

Where is your proof then?
You have repeatedly asked for gents football debate on this thread. If you say this is what the trust chairman has stated, where is the evidence?

I can only assume you are making it up! In other word you are bullshitting!

Yes football debate is most welcome, far better than all that tittle tattle. My evidence? I have not felt the need to prepare a case, I have no need to as it is common knowledge. I know for a fact that Gordon Ramsey bought a Ferrari too, although I haven't compiled evidence on that either simply because it is common knowledge and something I know to be a fact, so there is no need. You are more than welcome to assume anything you like as I have stated, it is your opinion that will be impacted negatively in terms of quality as opposed to my fact based statement. Feel free

You made a very succinct statement about a statement by the chairmen of the Seansea Spporters Trustyou use as evidence for the authority of the trust with regard to influencing the future of the club. Yet it is evident you can provide no evidence of this confident statement by the chairman. Yet apparently it is common knowledege but it cannot be evidenced, but you have made a fact based statement without any evidence of fact.
This is hailaroius! Do you perform a comedy act?
Surely a fact has evidence to support it? Or have you introduced a unique view of the scientific method?

Where is your evidence that I used that statement for the authority of the trust with regard to influencing the future of the club? I stated it as a fact as to why they may not be seeking legal action now. Assumptions are continuing to let your view down.
Where does it say I cannot provide evidence? Surely it would be more accurate to say that I have refused to? Just as I refused to provide evidence of the fact Gordon Ramsey owns a Ferrari. I have no need to do either do I? Unless you believe that my goal is for you to trust both points? A fact certainly does have evidence to support it, can you point to where I have said there isn't any? That will be an interesting read.

You have provide no evid nice to support your statement about the chairman of the Supporters' Trust saying that relationships with the current majority shareholders. A claim you issued as a statement of fact! Obviously, from your lack of evidence to support this statement we must as logical people presume this is false. Or as scientists would say unproven!

Not interested in Ramsey's car ownership but very interested in the proof of statements by the Swansea Supporters TrustCan you provide evidence to undermine my assumptions?

I have not said I would provide evidence, I have no need to, it is common knowledge. It is a statement of fact and I reiterate that, a complete total and utter fact at that. There is no lack of evidence on my part, I have first hand evidence as I know it to be a fact, you have a lack of evidence which is of course an entirely different thing. As I have told you, you may now make an assumption that the commonly known fact is not true but that is your opinion that will as a result have a quality issue.

I dont have an interest in if you are interested in Ramseys, the factual Chairmans statement, fishing, superbikes or cats. So why would I feel the need to provide you an array of evidence based on what you are interested in?

So you have no evidence that the Chairamn of the Suppoerts' Trust made this satement! However, I am supposed to believe he made this statement because you said he did!

Do you believe I am limited in intelligence? The Swansea Suppoerters' Trust make frequent well reported and in fairness well thought out and articulate Statements to their members. I can find no evidenc e to support your assertion!

You are so adamant about honest, fair, well informed debate and opinion! However, when questioned about the authenticity of your contribution you resort to rediculous and spurious arguments about your well sourced and well documented factual statements you cannot quote!

D bate honestly and factually or give up!

we are not renewing our tickets http://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/s ... revenue/#8

It's makes my night a ten minute look at the rat eaters crying

#shaftedbytheirown

Well run community club

So your facts have no evid nice to support them? How can any statement of fact stand for itself if there is no evidence of it being made? So you believe if you state something it must automatically be accepted as fact by other posters?

Evidence is always the quality assurance of proof! Do you have evidence for assertions? If not they are not facts! That is widely recognised as the burden of proof! Do you not agree?

My facts have every quality assured proof you could wish to have hence it is a commonly known fact. No, I never have proof of assertions, so try to not make them. Do I agree what? That if someone wants to prove something to someone that the burden of proof is on them? Yes absolutely. But I don't think I have ever tried to convince you have I? I have been clear of the factual commonly known statement and stated that it is completely up to you whether to accept said obvious commonly known fact or not. It is your opinion that it will affect the quality of, not mine

Where is your proof then?
You have repeatedly asked for gents football debate on this thread. If you say this is what the trust chairman has stated, where is the evidence?

I can only assume you are making it up! In other word you are bullshitting!

Yes football debate is most welcome, far better than all that tittle tattle. My evidence? I have not felt the need to prepare a case, I have no need to as it is common knowledge. I know for a fact that Gordon Ramsey bought a Ferrari too, although I haven't compiled evidence on that either simply because it is common knowledge and something I know to be a fact, so there is no need. You are more than welcome to assume anything you like as I have stated, it is your opinion that will be impacted negatively in terms of quality as opposed to my fact based statement. Feel free

You made a very succinct statement about a statement by the chairmen of the Seansea Spporters Trustyou use as evidence for the authority of the trust with regard to influencing the future of the club. Yet it is evident you can provide no evidence of this confident statement by the chairman. Yet apparently it is common knowledege but it cannot be evidenced, but you have made a fact based statement without any evidence of fact.
This is hailaroius! Do you perform a comedy act?
Surely a fact has evidence to support it? Or have you introduced a unique view of the scientific method?

Where is your evidence that I used that statement for the authority of the trust with regard to influencing the future of the club? I stated it as a fact as to why they may not be seeking legal action now. Assumptions are continuing to let your view down.
Where does it say I cannot provide evidence? Surely it would be more accurate to say that I have refused to? Just as I refused to provide evidence of the fact Gordon Ramsey owns a Ferrari. I have no need to do either do I? Unless you believe that my goal is for you to trust both points? A fact certainly does have evidence to support it, can you point to where I have said there isn't any? That will be an interesting read.

You have provide no evid nice to support your statement about the chairman of the Supporters' Trust saying that relationships with the current majority shareholders. A claim you issued as a statement of fact! Obviously, from your lack of evidence to support this statement we must as logical people presume this is false. Or as scientists would say unproven!

Not interested in Ramsey's car ownership but very interested in the proof of statements by the Swansea Supporters TrustCan you provide evidence to undermine my assumptions?

I have not said I would provide evidence, I have no need to, it is common knowledge. It is a statement of fact and I reiterate that, a complete total and utter fact at that. There is no lack of evidence on my part, I have first hand evidence as I know it to be a fact, you have a lack of evidence which is of course an entirely different thing. As I have told you, you may now make an assumption that the commonly known fact is not true but that is your opinion that will as a result have a quality issue.

I dont have an interest in if you are interested in Ramseys, the factual Chairmans statement, fishing, superbikes or cats. So why would I feel the need to provide you an array of evidence based on what you are interested in?

So you have no evidence that the Chairamn of the Suppoerts' Trust made this satement! However, I am supposed to believe he made this statement because you said he did!

Do you believe I am limited in intelligence? The Swansea Suppoerters' Trust make frequent well reported and in fairness well thought out and articulate Statements to their members. I can find no evidenc e to support your assertion!

You are so adamant about honest, fair, well informed debate and opinion! However, when questioned about the authenticity of your contribution you resort to rediculous and spurious arguments about your well sourced and well documented factual statements you cannot quote!

D bate honestly and factually or give up!

You are not listening to me. Where have I said I have no evidence? And where have I said you are supposed to believe the commnly known factual statement? I have said I have no desire to provide you with an evidence providing service but happy to consider it should you make it worth my while, like any other service provider. I have also said you are more than welcome to not accept the widely known commonly accepted fact, but it is your opinion that will suffer in quality as a result. So what you mean is you have no evidence, not that I have no evidence. And they are wildly different things. I will continue to debate factually and accurately, and you will comtinue to d cide to research yourself, refuse the commonly known fact or offer something worthwhile for someone to do the donkeywork on your behalf.

So your facts have no evid nice to support them? How can any statement of fact stand for itself if there is no evidence of it being made? So you believe if you state something it must automatically be accepted as fact by other posters?

Evidence is always the quality assurance of proof! Do you have evidence for assertions? If not they are not facts! That is widely recognised as the burden of proof! Do you not agree?

My facts have every quality assured proof you could wish to have hence it is a commonly known fact. No, I never have proof of assertions, so try to not make them. Do I agree what? That if someone wants to prove something to someone that the burden of proof is on them? Yes absolutely. But I don't think I have ever tried to convince you have I? I have been clear of the factual commonly known statement and stated that it is completely up to you whether to accept said obvious commonly known fact or not. It is your opinion that it will affect the quality of, not mine

Where is your proof then?
You have repeatedly asked for gents football debate on this thread. If you say this is what the trust chairman has stated, where is the evidence?

I can only assume you are making it up! In other word you are bullshitting!

Yes football debate is most welcome, far better than all that tittle tattle. My evidence? I have not felt the need to prepare a case, I have no need to as it is common knowledge. I know for a fact that Gordon Ramsey bought a Ferrari too, although I haven't compiled evidence on that either simply because it is common knowledge and something I know to be a fact, so there is no need. You are more than welcome to assume anything you like as I have stated, it is your opinion that will be impacted negatively in terms of quality as opposed to my fact based statement. Feel free

You made a very succinct statement about a statement by the chairmen of the Seansea Spporters Trustyou use as evidence for the authority of the trust with regard to influencing the future of the club. Yet it is evident you can provide no evidence of this confident statement by the chairman. Yet apparently it is common knowledege but it cannot be evidenced, but you have made a fact based statement without any evidence of fact.
This is hailaroius! Do you perform a comedy act?
Surely a fact has evidence to support it? Or have you introduced a unique view of the scientific method?

Where is your evidence that I used that statement for the authority of the trust with regard to influencing the future of the club? I stated it as a fact as to why they may not be seeking legal action now. Assumptions are continuing to let your view down.
Where does it say I cannot provide evidence? Surely it would be more accurate to say that I have refused to? Just as I refused to provide evidence of the fact Gordon Ramsey owns a Ferrari. I have no need to do either do I? Unless you believe that my goal is for you to trust both points? A fact certainly does have evidence to support it, can you point to where I have said there isn't any? That will be an interesting read.

You have provide no evid nice to support your statement about the chairman of the Supporters' Trust saying that relationships with the current majority shareholders. A claim you issued as a statement of fact! Obviously, from your lack of evidence to support this statement we must as logical people presume this is false. Or as scientists would say unproven!

Not interested in Ramsey's car ownership but very interested in the proof of statements by the Swansea Supporters TrustCan you provide evidence to undermine my assumptions?

I have not said I would provide evidence, I have no need to, it is common knowledge. It is a statement of fact and I reiterate that, a complete total and utter fact at that. There is no lack of evidence on my part, I have first hand evidence as I know it to be a fact, you have a lack of evidence which is of course an entirely different thing. As I have told you, you may now make an assumption that the commonly known fact is not true but that is your opinion that will as a result have a quality issue.

I dont have an interest in if you are interested in Ramseys, the factual Chairmans statement, fishing, superbikes or cats. So why would I feel the need to provide you an array of evidence based on what you are interested in?

So you have no evidence that the Chairamn of the Suppoerts' Trust made this satement! However, I am supposed to believe he made this statement because you said he did!

Do you believe I am limited in intelligence? The Swansea Suppoerters' Trust make frequent well reported and in fairness well thought out and articulate Statements to their members. I can find no evidenc e to support your assertion!

You are so adamant about honest, fair, well informed debate and opinion! However, when questioned about the authenticity of your contribution you resort to rediculous and spurious arguments about your well sourced and well documented factual statements you cannot quote!

D bate honestly and factually or give up!

I would give up Plynlymon. Everyone on here can see that he is a tool, and has been made to look a complete idiot. He cannot provide evidence where no evidence exists. Let him argue with himself, will give him some pleasure before he gets kicked off here. A lot of sensible posters will stop visiting the forum while he is here spouting off rubbish about swansea.

So your facts have no evid nice to support them? How can any statement of fact stand for itself if there is no evidence of it being made? So you believe if you state something it must automatically be accepted as fact by other posters?

Evidence is always the quality assurance of proof! Do you have evidence for assertions? If not they are not facts! That is widely recognised as the burden of proof! Do you not agree?

My facts have every quality assured proof you could wish to have hence it is a commonly known fact. No, I never have proof of assertions, so try to not make them. Do I agree what? That if someone wants to prove something to someone that the burden of proof is on them? Yes absolutely. But I don't think I have ever tried to convince you have I? I have been clear of the factual commonly known statement and stated that it is completely up to you whether to accept said obvious commonly known fact or not. It is your opinion that it will affect the quality of, not mine

Where is your proof then?
You have repeatedly asked for gents football debate on this thread. If you say this is what the trust chairman has stated, where is the evidence?

I can only assume you are making it up! In other word you are bullshitting!

Yes football debate is most welcome, far better than all that tittle tattle. My evidence? I have not felt the need to prepare a case, I have no need to as it is common knowledge. I know for a fact that Gordon Ramsey bought a Ferrari too, although I haven't compiled evidence on that either simply because it is common knowledge and something I know to be a fact, so there is no need. You are more than welcome to assume anything you like as I have stated, it is your opinion that will be impacted negatively in terms of quality as opposed to my fact based statement. Feel free

You made a very succinct statement about a statement by the chairmen of the Seansea Spporters Trustyou use as evidence for the authority of the trust with regard to influencing the future of the club. Yet it is evident you can provide no evidence of this confident statement by the chairman. Yet apparently it is common knowledege but it cannot be evidenced, but you have made a fact based statement without any evidence of fact.
This is hailaroius! Do you perform a comedy act?
Surely a fact has evidence to support it? Or have you introduced a unique view of the scientific method?

Where is your evidence that I used that statement for the authority of the trust with regard to influencing the future of the club? I stated it as a fact as to why they may not be seeking legal action now. Assumptions are continuing to let your view down.
Where does it say I cannot provide evidence? Surely it would be more accurate to say that I have refused to? Just as I refused to provide evidence of the fact Gordon Ramsey owns a Ferrari. I have no need to do either do I? Unless you believe that my goal is for you to trust both points? A fact certainly does have evidence to support it, can you point to where I have said there isn't any? That will be an interesting read.

You have provide no evid nice to support your statement about the chairman of the Supporters' Trust saying that relationships with the current majority shareholders. A claim you issued as a statement of fact! Obviously, from your lack of evidence to support this statement we must as logical people presume this is false. Or as scientists would say unproven!

Not interested in Ramsey's car ownership but very interested in the proof of statements by the Swansea Supporters TrustCan you provide evidence to undermine my assumptions?

I have not said I would provide evidence, I have no need to, it is common knowledge. It is a statement of fact and I reiterate that, a complete total and utter fact at that. There is no lack of evidence on my part, I have first hand evidence as I know it to be a fact, you have a lack of evidence which is of course an entirely different thing. As I have told you, you may now make an assumption that the commonly known fact is not true but that is your opinion that will as a result have a quality issue.

I dont have an interest in if you are interested in Ramseys, the factual Chairmans statement, fishing, superbikes or cats. So why would I feel the need to provide you an array of evidence based on what you are interested in?

So you have no evidence that the Chairamn of the Suppoerts' Trust made this satement! However, I am supposed to believe he made this statement because you said he did!

Do you believe I am limited in intelligence? The Swansea Suppoerters' Trust make frequent well reported and in fairness well thought out and articulate Statements to their members. I can find no evidenc e to support your assertion!

You are so adamant about honest, fair, well informed debate and opinion! However, when questioned about the authenticity of your contribution you resort to rediculous and spurious arguments about your well sourced and well documented factual statements you cannot quote!

D bate honestly and factually or give up!

I would give up Plynlymon. Everyone on here can see that he is a tool, and has been made to look a complete idiot. He cannot provide evidence where no evidence exists. Let him argue with himself, will give him some pleasure before he gets kicked off here. A lot of sensible posters will stop visiting the forum while he is here spouting off rubbish about swansea.

keep telling yourself that and you may believe it one day. I am still waiting for a decent offer to provide an evidence service, more than happy if you make it worth my while. (Not that this factual statement has anything to do with the thread, what I have said or my opinion in any shape or form of course )

So your facts have no evid nice to support them? How can any statement of fact stand for itself if there is no evidence of it being made? So you believe if you state something it must automatically be accepted as fact by other posters?

Evidence is always the quality assurance of proof! Do you have evidence for assertions? If not they are not facts! That is widely recognised as the burden of proof! Do you not agree?

My facts have every quality assured proof you could wish to have hence it is a commonly known fact. No, I never have proof of assertions, so try to not make them. Do I agree what? That if someone wants to prove something to someone that the burden of proof is on them? Yes absolutely. But I don't think I have ever tried to convince you have I? I have been clear of the factual commonly known statement and stated that it is completely up to you whether to accept said obvious commonly known fact or not. It is your opinion that it will affect the quality of, not mine

Where is your proof then?
You have repeatedly asked for gents football debate on this thread. If you say this is what the trust chairman has stated, where is the evidence?

I can only assume you are making it up! In other word you are bullshitting!

Yes football debate is most welcome, far better than all that tittle tattle. My evidence? I have not felt the need to prepare a case, I have no need to as it is common knowledge. I know for a fact that Gordon Ramsey bought a Ferrari too, although I haven't compiled evidence on that either simply because it is common knowledge and something I know to be a fact, so there is no need. You are more than welcome to assume anything you like as I have stated, it is your opinion that will be impacted negatively in terms of quality as opposed to my fact based statement. Feel free

You made a very succinct statement about a statement by the chairmen of the Seansea Spporters Trustyou use as evidence for the authority of the trust with regard to influencing the future of the club. Yet it is evident you can provide no evidence of this confident statement by the chairman. Yet apparently it is common knowledege but it cannot be evidenced, but you have made a fact based statement without any evidence of fact.
This is hailaroius! Do you perform a comedy act?
Surely a fact has evidence to support it? Or have you introduced a unique view of the scientific method?

Where is your evidence that I used that statement for the authority of the trust with regard to influencing the future of the club? I stated it as a fact as to why they may not be seeking legal action now. Assumptions are continuing to let your view down.
Where does it say I cannot provide evidence? Surely it would be more accurate to say that I have refused to? Just as I refused to provide evidence of the fact Gordon Ramsey owns a Ferrari. I have no need to do either do I? Unless you believe that my goal is for you to trust both points? A fact certainly does have evidence to support it, can you point to where I have said there isn't any? That will be an interesting read.

You have provide no evid nice to support your statement about the chairman of the Supporters' Trust saying that relationships with the current majority shareholders. A claim you issued as a statement of fact! Obviously, from your lack of evidence to support this statement we must as logical people presume this is false. Or as scientists would say unproven!

Not interested in Ramsey's car ownership but very interested in the proof of statements by the Swansea Supporters TrustCan you provide evidence to undermine my assumptions?

I have not said I would provide evidence, I have no need to, it is common knowledge. It is a statement of fact and I reiterate that, a complete total and utter fact at that. There is no lack of evidence on my part, I have first hand evidence as I know it to be a fact, you have a lack of evidence which is of course an entirely different thing. As I have told you, you may now make an assumption that the commonly known fact is not true but that is your opinion that will as a result have a quality issue.

I dont have an interest in if you are interested in Ramseys, the factual Chairmans statement, fishing, superbikes or cats. So why would I feel the need to provide you an array of evidence based on what you are interested in?

So you have no evidence that the Chairamn of the Suppoerts' Trust made this satement! However, I am supposed to believe he made this statement because you said he did!

Do you believe I am limited in intelligence? The Swansea Suppoerters' Trust make frequent well reported and in fairness well thought out and articulate Statements to their members. I can find no evidenc e to support your assertion!

You are so adamant about honest, fair, well informed debate and opinion! However, when questioned about the authenticity of your contribution you resort to rediculous and spurious arguments about your well sourced and well documented factual statements you cannot quote!

D bate honestly and factually or give up!

You are not listening to me. Where have I said I have no evidence? And where have I said you are supposed to believe the commnly known factual statement? I have said I have no desire to provide you with an evidence providing service but happy to consider it should you make it worth my while, like any other service provider. I have also said you are more than welcome to not accept the widely known commonly accepted fact, but it is your opinion that will suffer in quality as a result. So what you mean is you have no evidence, not that I have no evidence. And they are wildly different things. I will continue to debate factually and accurately, and you will comtinue to d cide to research yourself, refuse the commonly known fact or offer something worthwhile for someone to do the donkeywork on your behalf.

If it is a commonly known fact why have you not (refused) to provide evidence? Surely, if you are so passionate about informed debate that is supported by well documented evidence, this should not be an issue.

Might is suggest you refuse to provide evidence because you don't have any! I would suggest you have come a poor second Iin any serious debate and you resorted to a very spurious and infantile line of contribution that is based on the " I know but you don't" taunts of adolescence.

I thought you were intelligent! How wrong can I still be!

If it is a commonly known fact why have you not (refused) to provide evidence? Surely, if you are so passionate about informed debate that is supported by well documented evidence, this should not be an issue.

Might is suggest you refuse to provide evidence because you don't have any! I would suggest you have come a poor second Iin any serious debate and you resorted to a very spurious and infantile line of contribution that is based on the " I know but you don't" taunts of adolescence.

I thought you were intelligent! How wrong can I still be!

There is no "if", it is a commonly known fact. I refuse to provide you with the evidence you claim you are in need of because it has no baring on the debate what so ever. If my point hinged on it and thus felt the need to show this as a result, then I would. Currently it is like me saying "Gravity is evident in this world, i love cakes and it helps keep it on the table" and you demanding I provide proof that I like cakes. It is irrelevant enough to not want to bother, but as I have stated I will do it if you can offer me something in return.

"Suggest" and "assume" - yes you are more than welcome to do both. However suggestions and assumptions are poor quality of opinion, but that would be your prerogative.

If it is a commonly known fact why have you not (refused) to provide evidence? Surely, if you are so passionate about informed debate that is supported by well documented evidence, this should not be an issue.

Might is suggest you refuse to provide evidence because you don't have any! I would suggest you have come a poor second Iin any serious debate and you resorted to a very spurious and infantile line of contribution that is based on the " I know but you don't" taunts of adolescence.

I thought you were intelligent! How wrong can I still be!

There is no "if", it is a commonly known fact. I refuse to provide you with the evidence you claim you are in need of because it has no baring on the debate what so ever. If my point hinged on it and thus felt the need to show this as a result, then I would. Currently it is like me saying "Gravity is evident in this world, i love cakes and it helps keep it on the table" and you demanding I provide proof that I like cakes. It is irrelevant enough to not want to bother, but as I have stated I will do it if you can offer me something in return.

"Suggest" and "assume" - yes you are more than welcome to do both. However suggestions and assumptions are poor wuality of opinion, but that would be your prerogative.

So you have no evidence to support your opinion! The commonly known fact cannot be evidenced! What point are you trying to prove in this debate? I would suggest that the lack of ability to provide evidence for your assertions, damages the paucity of any fact you claim to be true.

You flounder lime a man who has lost a debate!

If it is a commonly known fact why have you not (refused) to provide evidence? Surely, if you are so passionate about informed debate that is supported by well documented evidence, this should not be an issue.

Might is suggest you refuse to provide evidence because you don't have any! I would suggest you have come a poor second Iin any serious debate and you resorted to a very spurious and infantile line of contribution that is based on the " I know but you don't" taunts of adolescence.

I thought you were intelligent! How wrong can I still be!

There is no "if", it is a commonly known fact. I refuse to provide you with the evidence you claim you are in need of because it has no baring on the debate what so ever. If my point hinged on it and thus felt the need to show this as a result, then I would. Currently it is like me saying "Gravity is evident in this world, i love cakes and it helps keep it on the table" and you demanding I provide proof that I like cakes. It is irrelevant enough to not want to bother, but as I have stated I will do it if you can offer me something in return.

"Suggest" and "assume" - yes you are more than welcome to do both. However suggestions and assumptions are poor wuality of opinion, but that would be your prerogative.

So you have no evidence to support your opinion! The commonly known fact cannot be evidenced! What point are you trying to prove in this debate? I would suggest that the lack of ability to provide evidence for your assertions, damages the paucity of any fact you claim to be true.

You flounder lime a man who has lost a debate!

He has no evidence. Exactly the same as with his numerous user names, he is never wrong in his mind, even if everyone else knows he is. Where he will succeed eventually, is to ruin this forum and stop sensible posters from joining in discussions about Cardiff City.

If it is a commonly known fact why have you not (refused) to provide evidence? Surely, if you are so passionate about informed debate that is supported by well documented evidence, this should not be an issue.

Might is suggest you refuse to provide evidence because you don't have any! I would suggest you have come a poor second Iin any serious debate and you resorted to a very spurious and infantile line of contribution that is based on the " I know but you don't" taunts of adolescence.

I thought you were intelligent! How wrong can I still be!

There is no "if", it is a commonly known fact. I refuse to provide you with the evidence you claim you are in need of because it has no baring on the debate what so ever. If my point hinged on it and thus felt the need to show this as a result, then I would. Currently it is like me saying "Gravity is evident in this world, i love cakes and it helps keep it on the table" and you demanding I provide proof that I like cakes. It is irrelevant enough to not want to bother, but as I have stated I will do it if you can offer me something in return.

"Suggest" and "assume" - yes you are more than welcome to do both. However suggestions and assumptions are poor wuality of opinion, but that would be your prerogative.

So you have no evidence to support your opinion! The commonly known fact cannot be evidenced! What point are you trying to prove in this debate? I would suggest that the lack of ability to provide evidence for your assertions, damages the paucity of any fact you claim to be true.

You flounder lime a man who has lost a debate!

You are making that same mistake again. If I ask for you to come and clean my house because I need to believe you can do it, and you refuse on the basis that you do not want to go through the effort to prove you can.. Does that mean you are incapable of cleaning? No. This commonly known fact has nothing to do with any discussion what so ever, if you need this evidence for whatever reason you need it for... then you must offer me something in return. Fair?