Cardiff City Forum



A forum for all things Cardiff City

Re: sam =700% tan =400%

Tue Jun 03, 2014 10:56 am

simon.wiesenthal wrote:bit of a keyboard warrior on the sly eh...



simon.wiesenthal wrote:your a liar Roath..and if mr chuckles can not figure that out he is thicker than i thought..............


Here's a prime example of your hypocrisy... :laughing6:

Re: sam =700% tan =400%

Tue Jun 03, 2014 10:59 am

Roath_Magic_ wrote:
simon.wiesenthal wrote:
Roath_Magic_ wrote::lol: jesus christ.

Mr soulofthesea - it was an example to show your stupidity, not a word for word relay of what you actually said :lol:

It was an example to show how you rubbish the clearly obvious scenario because there are a multitude of almost impossible ones to throw out there. Talking to you is literally blunting the sharpness of my mind by the second. Its painful :lol:


oh we are back to it being an example.........read back.......thats not what you claimed.........your a liar.......and if you need to lie on here about this............what else?


Holy shit, this is crazy - its unfair to swansealad to compare you both :lol:

You genuinely think im saying somebody ACTUALLY asked me what would happen if you jumped from a plane at 30,000 feet? :lol:


paul like me is not full of make believe and lies...........ive never seen him make up a rediculous post just to get credit off the back of making out someone said something totally ridiculous..............id much rather be compared to a liar like you tbh... most would

Re: sam =700% tan =400%

Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:00 am

Barry Chuckle wrote:
simon.wiesenthal wrote:bit of a keyboard warrior on the sly eh...



simon.wiesenthal wrote:your a liar Roath..and if mr chuckles can not figure that out he is thicker than i thought..............


Here's a prime example of your hypocrisy... :laughing6:


I also suggest when calling someone thick then he applies spell check to his frantic scribblings :laughing6:

Re: sam =700% tan =400%

Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:00 am

Barry Chuckle wrote:
simon.wiesenthal wrote:bit of a keyboard warrior on the sly eh...



simon.wiesenthal wrote:your a liar Roath..and if mr chuckles can not figure that out he is thicker than i thought..............


Here's a prime example of your hypocrisy... :laughing6:


took the bait........your hero is a liar...........but you cant think for yourself can you

Re: sam =700% tan =400%

Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:01 am

simon.wiesenthal wrote:
Roath_Magic_ wrote:
simon.wiesenthal wrote:
Roath_Magic_ wrote::lol: jesus christ.

Mr soulofthesea - it was an example to show your stupidity, not a word for word relay of what you actually said :lol:

It was an example to show how you rubbish the clearly obvious scenario because there are a multitude of almost impossible ones to throw out there. Talking to you is literally blunting the sharpness of my mind by the second. Its painful :lol:


oh we are back to it being an example.........read back.......thats not what you claimed.........your a liar.......and if you need to lie on here about this............what else?


Holy shit, this is crazy - its unfair to swansealad to compare you both :lol:

You genuinely think im saying somebody ACTUALLY asked me what would happen if you jumped from a plane at 30,000 feet? :lol:





paul like me is not full of make believe and lies...........ive never seen him make up a rediculous post just to get credit off the back of making out someone said something totally ridiculous..............id much rather be compared to a liar like you tbh... most would


:laughing6:

Which part of the bold confuses you - the original text to which i have referred to in this thread :thumbup: .....



Roath_Magic_ wrote:
simon.wiesenthal wrote:
Roath_Magic_ wrote::lol: of course it is guess work. Anything that hasn't happened yet is guesswork and ive never ever claimed otherwise. However we can have accurate guesses based on most likely scenario.

Business valuation is a method and not an impulse hence we can see what the club is roughly worth. Anything open market at slightly less than monetary value will sell, which is why we can come up with these figures and make a thesis on potential strategies and exit scenarios. The exact same ones tan will go thrugh.

Sometimes I think you reply just to talk to me rather than have any sort of point :D


the point is made...............anything that hasnt happened yet is guesswork............

yes but educated guesswork. If I were to sell my house now I'd get round 550k for it. It hasn't happened yet but know what I would roughly get

Tan claims he has put in 140mill........he could stay and invest various amounts of money { i could guess but im not thick.}

he could gift you a billion dollars just do fun too - but again that isn't likely based on common sense and what we know.

he could stay and slowly asset strip the club paying back the debt as he goes along......

but he won't because it makes no sense to do that. This is why an educated guess differs from just a random possible scenario.

and he could wake up one morning and say f**k it.........wouldnt be a businessman of the year move, but possible...........

again this is not really possible or plausible. You seem confused between educated guess and random scenario.

An example.... someone asking what will happen if you jump out of a plane at 30000 feet with no parachute and me saying "death".

You then come back with "how do you know? You may land on another passing plane and fall through the roof into another seat and land safely" and thinking both guesses are equal.
.

many very wealthy men divorce their wives every year too.....not good business,but to them makes good sense.........

What? :lol:

its not all in books roath my son......life is like a box of chocolates......

again... What? :lol:

oh..and no...this isnt talking ...there is no debate with you..........you bait us,and we bite......being contentious all the time just to have posts aimed at you so that you can reply..is not talking.........its attention seeking

in what way is saying Cardiff after asset stripping will worth around 30 mill in any way contentious? :laughing6:

You just read my posts, don't understand them so instead of asking... start ranting :laughing6:


Re: sam =700% tan =400%

Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:04 am

This is embarrassing to read, simon making a prat of himself again. Roathie has just provided the original transcript which clearly states it was an example. You are wrong simon. Stop now. Its horribly uncomfortable to read.

Re: sam =700% tan =400%

Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:06 am

Roath_Magic_ wrote:
Barry Chuckle wrote:
simon.wiesenthal wrote:bit of a keyboard warrior on the sly eh...



simon.wiesenthal wrote:your a liar Roath..and if mr chuckles can not figure that out he is thicker than i thought..............


Here's a prime example of your hypocrisy... :laughing6:


I also suggest when calling someone thick then he applies spell check to his frantic scribblings :laughing6:


and there you have it........i knew youd do that at some point.........einstein.churchill,austin,hemmingway etc etc etc were all poor spellers...........authors,nobel prize winners great leaders.......
overly concerned with spelling..especially in texts or on social media is often a sign of inferiority
not a trait of bright people

Re: sam =700% tan =400%

Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:07 am

simon.wiesenthal wrote:and there you have it........i knew youd do that at some point.........einstein.churchill,austin,hemmingway etc etc etc were all poor spellers...........authors,nobel prize winners great leaders.......
overly concerned with spelling..especially in texts or on social media is often a sign of inferiority
not a trait of bright people


But they all spoke sense, thats the point you arent grasping :lol:

Re: sam =700% tan =400%

Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:07 am

Barry Chuckle wrote:
simon.wiesenthal wrote:bit of a keyboard warrior on the sly eh...



simon.wiesenthal wrote:your a liar Roath..and if mr chuckles can not figure that out he is thicker than i thought..............


Here's a prime example of your hypocrisy... :laughing6:

Better than being an out and out liar eh Alex ;)

Re: sam =700% tan =400%

Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:09 am

you can put AN EXAMPLE..................as much as you like

your post was there to decieve..........and belittle..........to look big and clever for your follower
no harm done..Robin is still there like a dog with two tails............
awaiting the masters next set of lies

Re: sam =700% tan =400%

Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:10 am

simon.wiesenthal wrote:you can put AN EXAMPLE..................as much as you like

your post was there to decieve..........and belittle..........to look big and clever for your follower
no harm done..Robin is still there like a dog with two tails............
awaiting the masters next set of lies


So you now acknowledge it was an example, good boy :laughing6:

Now then, how about this counter.

How can the club afford to bare £150m of debt on its own? :thumbup:

Re: sam =700% tan =400%

Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:11 am

Roath_Magic_ wrote:
simon.wiesenthal wrote:and there you have it........i knew youd do that at some point.........einstein.churchill,austin,hemmingway etc etc etc were all poor spellers...........authors,nobel prize winners great leaders.......
overly concerned with spelling..especially in texts or on social media is often a sign of inferiority
not a trait of bright people


But they all spoke sense, thats the point you arent grasping :lol:


WHAT IVE GRASPED IS YOUR A FLAT OUT LIAR

IF YOU CAN INVENT POSTS ONCE..YOU CAN DO IT ALL THE TIME..........WHAT OTHER LIES ?????

Re: sam =700% tan =400%

Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:12 am

Roath_Magic_ wrote:
simon.wiesenthal wrote:you can put AN EXAMPLE..................as much as you like

your post was there to decieve..........and belittle..........to look big and clever for your follower
no harm done..Robin is still there like a dog with two tails............
awaiting the masters next set of lies


So you now acknowledge it was an example, good boy :laughing6:

Now then, how about this counter.

How can the club afford to bare £150m of debt on its own? :thumbup:


NO I DONT ACCEPT IT WAS ANYTHING OTHER THAN A SAD DESPERATE MAN ,, HAVING TO LIE ON A MESSAGE BOARD

Re: sam =700% tan =400%

Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:13 am

simon.wiesenthal wrote:
Roath_Magic_ wrote:
simon.wiesenthal wrote:and there you have it........i knew youd do that at some point.........einstein.churchill,austin,hemmingway etc etc etc were all poor spellers...........authors,nobel prize winners great leaders.......
overly concerned with spelling..especially in texts or on social media is often a sign of inferiority
not a trait of bright people


But they all spoke sense, thats the point you arent grasping :lol:


WHAT IVE GRASPED IS YOUR A FLAT OUT LIAR

IF YOU CAN INVENT POSTS ONCE..YOU CAN DO IT ALL THE TIME..........WHAT OTHER LIES ?????


A liar for giving an example? How is that even possible? :lol:

Now then, how can the club afford to bear £150m of debt on its own mr caps-lock? :laughing6:

Re: sam =700% tan =400%

Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:13 am

simon.wiesenthal wrote:
Roath_Magic_ wrote:
simon.wiesenthal wrote:you can put AN EXAMPLE..................as much as you like

your post was there to decieve..........and belittle..........to look big and clever for your follower
no harm done..Robin is still there like a dog with two tails............
awaiting the masters next set of lies


So you now acknowledge it was an example, good boy :laughing6:

Now then, how about this counter.

How can the club afford to bare £150m of debt on its own? :thumbup:


NO I DONT ACCEPT IT WAS ANYTHING OTHER THAN A SAD DESPERATE MAN ,, HAVING TO LIE ON A MESSAGE BOARD


Oh my :D

So then i will ask again - which part of "an example" confuses you? (Remember that was a quote from the direct transcript) :lol: :D

Re: sam =700% tan =400%

Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:15 am

Joffrey wrote:This is embarrassing to read, simon making a prat of himself again. Roathie has just provided the original transcript which clearly states it was an example. You are wrong simon. Stop now. Its horribly uncomfortable to read.


I BEG TO DIFFER................ yes that was HIS post.......all of it.............but in this thread,he convieniently makes out that the answer in the example....was actually my response
which it was not
it might be if he was talking to you
but it was not mine
so no youve just made yoursef the prat
and a liar lover

Re: sam =700% tan =400%

Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:16 am

simon.wiesenthal wrote:
Joffrey wrote:This is embarrassing to read, simon making a prat of himself again. Roathie has just provided the original transcript which clearly states it was an example. You are wrong simon. Stop now. Its horribly uncomfortable to read.


I BEG TO DIFFER................ yes that was HIS post.......all of it.............but in this thread,he convieniently makes out that the answer in the example....was actually my response
which it was not
it might be if he was talking to you
but it was not mine
so no youve just made yoursef the prat
and a liar lover

Someone get the men in white coats :shock: :lol:

Re: sam =700% tan =400%

Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:17 am

Roath_Magic_ wrote:
simon.wiesenthal wrote:
Roath_Magic_ wrote:
simon.wiesenthal wrote:you can put AN EXAMPLE..................as much as you like

your post was there to decieve..........and belittle..........to look big and clever for your follower
no harm done..Robin is still there like a dog with two tails............
awaiting the masters next set of lies


So you now acknowledge it was an example, good boy :laughing6:

Now then, how about this counter.

How can the club afford to bare £150m of debt on its own? :thumbup:


NO I DONT ACCEPT IT WAS ANYTHING OTHER THAN A SAD DESPERATE MAN ,, HAVING TO LIE ON A MESSAGE BOARD


Oh my :D

So then i will ask again - which part of "an example" confuses you? (Remember that was a quote from the direct transcript) :lol: :D


the part.............where IN THIS THREAD............you atribute the response to me........
liar

Re: sam =700% tan =400%

Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:20 am

simon.wiesenthal wrote:
Roath_Magic_ wrote:
simon.wiesenthal wrote:
Roath_Magic_ wrote:
simon.wiesenthal wrote:you can put AN EXAMPLE..................as much as you like

your post was there to decieve..........and belittle..........to look big and clever for your follower
no harm done..Robin is still there like a dog with two tails............
awaiting the masters next set of lies


So you now acknowledge it was an example, good boy :laughing6:

Now then, how about this counter.

How can the club afford to bare £150m of debt on its own? :thumbup:


NO I DONT ACCEPT IT WAS ANYTHING OTHER THAN A SAD DESPERATE MAN ,, HAVING TO LIE ON A MESSAGE BOARD


Oh my :D

So then i will ask again - which part of "an example" confuses you? (Remember that was a quote from the direct transcript) :lol: :D


the part.............where IN THIS THREAD............you atribute the response to me........
liar


I referred to a previous conversation (the one i quoted) - i assumed you would remember it was an example considering it was a few days ago and not needing to clarify. Maybe i should have known that i must spell everything out to someone who apparently isnt even familiar with conversations had mere days ago :laughing6:

As ive said before, you barely think before you post. The stupidity is frightening :laughing6:

Re: sam =700% tan =400%

Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:20 am

Roath_Magic_ wrote:
simon.wiesenthal wrote:
Joffrey wrote:This is embarrassing to read, simon making a prat of himself again. Roathie has just provided the original transcript which clearly states it was an example. You are wrong simon. Stop now. Its horribly uncomfortable to read.


I BEG TO DIFFER................ yes that was HIS post.......all of it.............but in this thread,he convieniently makes out that the answer in the example....was actually my response
which it was not
it might be if he was talking to you
but it was not mine
so no youve just made yoursef the prat
and a liar lover

Someone get the men in white coats :shock: :lol:


in your example..you had an imaginary convo with me.................i didnt say those things............they were made up........you say an EXAMPLE of what id say................NOT what i did say
here we are a week later...and your trying to pass it offf as what ive said..............and i didnt
if i did...show me

Re: sam =700% tan =400%

Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:21 am

simon.wiesenthal wrote:
Roath_Magic_ wrote:
simon.wiesenthal wrote:
Joffrey wrote:This is embarrassing to read, simon making a prat of himself again. Roathie has just provided the original transcript which clearly states it was an example. You are wrong simon. Stop now. Its horribly uncomfortable to read.


I BEG TO DIFFER................ yes that was HIS post.......all of it.............but in this thread,he convieniently makes out that the answer in the example....was actually my response
which it was not
it might be if he was talking to you
but it was not mine
so no youve just made yoursef the prat
and a liar lover

Someone get the men in white coats :shock: :lol:


in your example..you had an imaginary convo with me.................i didnt say those things............they were made up........you say an EXAMPLE of what id say................NOT what i did say
here we are a week later...and your trying to pass it offf as what ive said..............and i didnt
if i did...show me


:lol: if i put loads of dots in between it will it make you understand what an example is? I even out it in bold for you :lol:

Re: sam =700% tan =400%

Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:21 am

Roath_Magic_ wrote:
simon.wiesenthal wrote:
Roath_Magic_ wrote:
simon.wiesenthal wrote:
Roath_Magic_ wrote:
simon.wiesenthal wrote:you can put AN EXAMPLE..................as much as you like

your post was there to decieve..........and belittle..........to look big and clever for your follower
no harm done..Robin is still there like a dog with two tails............
awaiting the masters next set of lies


So you now acknowledge it was an example, good boy :laughing6:

Now then, how about this counter.

How can the club afford to bare £150m of debt on its own? :thumbup:


NO I DONT ACCEPT IT WAS ANYTHING OTHER THAN A SAD DESPERATE MAN ,, HAVING TO LIE ON A MESSAGE BOARD


Oh my :D

So then i will ask again - which part of "an example" confuses you? (Remember that was a quote from the direct transcript) :lol: :D


the part.............where IN THIS THREAD............you atribute the response to me........
liar


I referred to a previous conversation (the one i quoted) - i assumed you would remember it was an example considering it was a few days ago and not needing to clarify. Maybe i should have known that i must spell everything out to someone who apparently isnt even familiar with conversations had mere days ago :laughing6:

As ive said before, you barely think before you post. The stupidity is frightening :laughing6:


no no no...............you were desperate......so made out id said what in fact you had said............LIAR

Re: sam =700% tan =400%

Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:22 am

Simon give it a rest you are too f*cking stupid for words. You are wrong.

Re: sam =700% tan =400%

Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:23 am

simon.wiesenthal wrote:
no no no...............you were desperate......so made out id said what in fact you had said............LIAR


You have to be just avoiding apologising for being wrong, nobody can be this stupid. Can they? :laughing6:

In that case. Apology accepted :thumbup:

Re: sam =700% tan =400%

Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:24 am

simon.wiesenthal wrote:
Roath_Magic_ wrote:
simon.wiesenthal wrote:
Roath_Magic_ wrote:
simon.wiesenthal wrote:you can put AN EXAMPLE..................as much as you like

your post was there to decieve..........and belittle..........to look big and clever for your follower
no harm done..Robin is still there like a dog with two tails............
awaiting the masters next set of lies


So you now acknowledge it was an example, good boy :laughing6:

Now then, how about this counter.

How can the club afford to bare £150m of debt on its own? :thumbup:


NO I DONT ACCEPT IT WAS ANYTHING OTHER THAN A SAD DESPERATE MAN ,, HAVING TO LIE ON A MESSAGE BOARD


Oh my :D

So then i will ask again - which part of "an example" confuses you? (Remember that was a quote from the direct transcript) :lol: :D


the part.............where IN THIS THREAD............you atribute the response to me........
liar

Why do you continue to try debating this guy simon? He cant even read "the bluebirds is protected towards anything related with football". He continue to argue you can make coffee mugs with a bluebird, hench it is not protected. He dosent even see the difference between the OWNER being able to carry the dept and previous owners failing to want to. Just smile, nod your head and walk away with people like this, and let children like chuckles learn their own lessons :thumbup:

Re: sam =700% tan =400%

Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:27 am

Roath_Magic_ wrote:
simon.wiesenthal wrote:
Roath_Magic_ wrote:
7Summit wrote:
Roath_Magic_ wrote:If you where (sic) wrong? :?

Come on Pete there was nothing to read. It was common sense :laughing6:

I'm able to get the point presented to you in this thread and read copyrights. All good thanx


Thanx? (sic) :?

Reading copyrights and understanding copyrights are completely different, the thread is still going if you would like to take it up with me again? :thumbright:

As for this thread? What point has been presented young man? £150m is manageable for the club alone because tan is a successful businessman? :lol:

Nice.


if you were a millionaire business man........youd fully understand that different people have different plans,and thoughts and ideas to yours........you would understand that........whats too much of a gamble in one mans eyes makes perfect sense to another....one might have better advice,,know things about situation the other doesnt............business as life does not have one highway,its diverse............your rigid business rantings show no understanding,or experience.....its all parrot fashion............you know this its why ill be called a ranting pleb in amongst lots of laughing heads,lols, thumbsups and plebs......its not tyour out of your depth talking to me,your out of your depth full stop.........


:D here you go again. Absolutely no sense to your post what so ever.

When someone makes an obvious point that you dont like to admit you tend to say "how do you know? X,y and z could happen" even though x,y or z is ridiculously unlikely.

Remember what i said the other day regarding someone asking me what would happen if someone jumped out of a plane at 30000 feet? Me answering "death" and you responding with "how do you know? You may land on another passing plane and be fine" - and think both are equal statements :lol:

How about this.... YOU put forward a counter, and not a reply that consists of "there may be an alternative" - tell me what it is and why you think there is equal chance than my view on the situation.

Do your best :laughing6: :thumbup:


AND YOU RESPONDING......................how do you know? you may land on another plane and be fine..........
but i didnt respond..............thats your stupid story,not anybody elses..................
its there to try to gain the high ground..........and i know you have that already..lol.......but resort to LIES..LIES AND MORE LIES....................on a message board..get a life

Re: sam =700% tan =400%

Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:28 am

Joffrey wrote:Simon give it a rest you are too f*cking stupid for words. You are wrong.


if i am.............SNAP

Re: sam =700% tan =400%

Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:29 am

7Summit wrote:Why do you continue to try debating this guy simon? He cant even read "the bluebirds is protected towards anything related with football". He continue to argue you can make coffee mugs with a bluebird, hench it is not protected. He dosent even see the difference between the OWNER being able to carry the dept and previous owners failing to want to. Just smile, nod your head and walk away with people like this, and let children like chuckles learn their own lessons :thumbup:


You are in the same mould as soulofthesea. Thick as they come. Ive told you many times about the copyright, you are completely wrong as many have told you - and the thread is still open, lets go again for round 2 :thumbup:

On to this thread.... Are you suggesting Tan will walk away from the money he is owed? :laughing6:

Re: sam =700% tan =400%

Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:30 am

Roath_Magic_ wrote:
7Summit wrote:Why do you continue to try debating this guy simon? He cant even read "the bluebirds is protected towards anything related with football". He continue to argue you can make coffee mugs with a bluebird, hench it is not protected. He dosent even see the difference between the OWNER being able to carry the dept and previous owners failing to want to. Just smile, nod your head and walk away with people like this, and let children like chuckles learn their own lessons :thumbup:


You are in the same mould as soulofthesea. Thick as they come. Ive told you many times about the copyright, you are completely wrong as many have told you - and the thread is still open, lets go again for round 2 :thumbup:

On to this thread.... Are you suggesting Tan will walk away from the money he is owed? :laughing6:

:D :notworthy: :wave:

Re: sam =700% tan =400%

Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:30 am

simon.wiesenthal wrote:
Roath_Magic_ wrote:
simon.wiesenthal wrote:
Roath_Magic_ wrote:
7Summit wrote:
Roath_Magic_ wrote:If you where (sic) wrong? :?

Come on Pete there was nothing to read. It was common sense :laughing6:

I'm able to get the point presented to you in this thread and read copyrights. All good thanx


Thanx? (sic) :?

Reading copyrights and understanding copyrights are completely different, the thread is still going if you would like to take it up with me again? :thumbright:

As for this thread? What point has been presented young man? £150m is manageable for the club alone because tan is a successful businessman? :lol:

Nice.


if you were a millionaire business man........youd fully understand that different people have different plans,and thoughts and ideas to yours........you would understand that........whats too much of a gamble in one mans eyes makes perfect sense to another....one might have better advice,,know things about situation the other doesnt............business as life does not have one highway,its diverse............your rigid business rantings show no understanding,or experience.....its all parrot fashion............you know this its why ill be called a ranting pleb in amongst lots of laughing heads,lols, thumbsups and plebs......its not tyour out of your depth talking to me,your out of your depth full stop.........


:D here you go again. Absolutely no sense to your post what so ever.

When someone makes an obvious point that you dont like to admit you tend to say "how do you know? X,y and z could happen" even though x,y or z is ridiculously unlikely.

Remember what i said the other day regarding someone asking me what would happen if someone jumped out of a plane at 30000 feet? Me answering "death" and you responding with "how do you know? You may land on another passing plane and be fine" - and think both are equal statements :lol:

How about this.... YOU put forward a counter, and not a reply that consists of "there may be an alternative" - tell me what it is and why you think there is equal chance than my view on the situation.

Do your best :laughing6: :thumbup:


AND YOU RESPONDING......................how do you know? you may land on another plane and be fine..........
but i didnt respond..............thats your stupid story,not anybody elses..................
its there to try to gain the high ground..........and i know you have that already..lol.......but resort to LIES..LIES AND MORE LIES....................on a message board..get a life


Yes soulofthesea - if it was an example hypothetical question then surely one would assume the answer would also be of that nature? :laughing6:

This is like talking to someone rocking back and forth in a straight jacket :lol: