[h again]

Balearic Mac, on Jan 11 2007, 09:25 PM, said:

Patronising? I'd expect little else from someone who by now would be unrecognisable even to his mum with all that egg on his face.

How and why would anyone be so committed in their defence of the indefensible? Perhaps the word committed may, in itself, offer a pretty big clue...

Well it saves you the trouble of trying to think of an argument I suppose. For heaven's ake put your brain in gear for once - that stuff is unworthy even of you. Incidentally, 'patronising' is totally the wrong usage to apply, which is what we might expect from fishi - a man with all the charisma of the North Sea codfish.
I think if you really work at it you might one day rise above hanging onto fishi's scaly tail in an attempt at humour. Now THAT'S patronising.

[Wooden Spoon]

h again, on Jan 13 2007, 01:10 AM, said:

For heaven's sake, get a life. Who do you think is going to read all that dross? Put your thoughts, such as they are, in some kind of order and learn to express yourself in something approaching English. You're a living example of why grammar and punctuation are importamt - if nothing else they help to focus the thought processes. Without some idea of both you're lost - as your posts illustrate perfectly.

see what your reduced to?

no case to argue, no point to make, argument shot down in flames by the very events and ballot going on right now at cfss.

cfss are "finished" as owners, they couldnt make it work,and as i stated four months ago(see post above) should have and will have a small share and 1 seat on the board. just admit your wrong about the whole sorry episode and move on.

but you cant can you. a sad and pitifull man who has to resort to spell checking, grammer checks and cheap jibes.

how very very sad.

This post has been edited by death: 13 January 2007 - 03:18 AM

[h again]

death, on Jan 13 2007, 03:16 AM, said:

see what your reduced to?

no case to argue, no point to make, argument shot down in flames by the very events and ballot going on right now at cfss.

cfss are "finished" as owners, they couldnt make it work,and as i stated four months ago(see post above) should have and will have a small share and 1 seat on the board. just admit your wrong about the whole sorry episode and move on.

but you cant can you. a sad and pitifull man who has to resort to spell checking, grammer checks and cheap jibes.

how very very sad.

So you strongly disagree that CFSS should buy Preference Shares and hence another seat on the Board? Funny, you thought it was a good idea earlier in the thread. You see the difficulty in actually arguing with people who don't even know what they think themselves? It's a bit like arguing with blancmange, though in your case I'm probably doing blancmange an injustice.,

[Wooden Spoon]

h again, on Jan 13 2007, 11:22 AM, said:

So you strongly disagree that CFSS should buy Preference Shares and hence another seat on the Board? Funny, you thought it was a good idea earlier in the thread. You see the difficulty in actually arguing with people who don't even know what they think themselves? It's a bit like arguing with blancmange, though in your case I'm probably doing blancmange an injustice.,

your doing what you accuse T_F of, making something up to then refute it.

see the third and fourth line of the post you have just replied to. you could at least read it before posting mindless drivel.

four months ago i said they should retain a share,see the post from earlier. sept 06. im saying the same now.

eight months ago i said CFSS are not capable of OWNING AND RUNNING the club and should sell. something which is now being proposed by hubbard.

there fore i am consistently saying the same, something you should try instead of your revolving door left turn right style of arguing.

dont you tire of looking foolish?

This post has been edited by death: 13 January 2007 - 02:13 PM

[fishini]

death, on Jan 13 2007, 02:12 PM, said:

your doing what you accuse T_F of, making something up to then refute it.

see the third and fourth line of the post you have just replied to. you could at least read it before posting mindless drivel.

four months ago i said they should retain a share,see the post from earlier. sept 06. im saying the same now.

eight months ago i said CFSS are not capable of OWNING AND RUNNING the club and should sell. something which is now being proposed by hubbard.

there fore i am consistently saying the same, something you should try instead of your revolving door left turn right style of arguing.

dont you tire of looking foolish?

He's quiet happy to look foolish I think he looks more like a ****

[h again]

fishini, on Jan 13 2007, 08:34 PM, said:

He's quiet happy to look foolish I think he looks more like a ****

Hello fishi. Well up to your usual intellectual standards, that one, and you even managed to avoid the usual spelling howlers by using asterisks. Damned clever - I bet that brain cell was fairly throbbing.

[h again]

death, on Jan 13 2007, 02:12 PM, said:

your doing what you accuse T_F of, making something up to then refute it.

see the third and fourth line of the post you have just replied to. you could at least read it before posting mindless drivel.

four months ago i said they should retain a share,see the post from earlier. sept 06. im saying the same now.

eight months ago i said CFSS are not capable of OWNING AND RUNNING the club and should sell. something which is now being proposed by hubbard.

there fore i am consistently saying the same, something you should try instead of your revolving door left turn right style of arguing.

dont you tire of looking foolish?

The English Comprehension just goes from bad to worse, doesn't it? You said that CFSS were finished as owners - that surely means you don't approve of them buying more shares to get seats on the Board?
Incidentally, the only thing you've ever said CONSISTENTLY is that CFSS were a bunch of total incompetents - though if you were feeling particularly mellow you sometimes added that they did well originally but should now hand over to the CFC Board so that the club could move on. Does that ring a bell?Buying shares to get a bigger say in the running of the club didn't seem to feature much in all those thousands of posts.
By the way, have you ever thought of offering to sell clothes pegs door to door to raise a few bob. Couple it with something really novel - like telling fortunes, say - and it could be a big winner. Just feel free to use the idea as though it were your own.

[Balearic Mac]

h again, on Jan 14 2007, 09:51 PM, said:

The English Comprehension just goes from bad to worse, doesn't it? You said that CFSS were finished as owners - that surely means you don't approve of them buying more shares to get seats on the Board?
Incidentally, the only thing you've ever said CONSISTENTLY is that CFSS were a bunch of total incompetents - though if you were feeling particularly mellow you sometimes added that they did well originally but should now hand over to the CFC Board so that the club could move on. Does that ring a bell?Buying shares to get a bigger say in the running of the club didn't seem to feature much in all those thousands of posts.
By the way, have you ever thought of offering to sell clothes pegs door to door to raise a few bob. Couple it with something really novel - like telling fortunes, say - and it could be a big winner. Just feel free to use the idea as though it were your own.

I think the notion of more fans representation on the board is worth exploring, but there are several problems here, not least CFSS's inability to raise the necessary funds to purchase more shares. I'd expect membership money has all but stopped coming in and I'm pushed to think of other schemes they've got running to tap into.

Personally, though, I'd not be keen on any of the existing CFSS incumbents being returned to a position of 'representing' the fans. I believe much of the resentment towards them has been down to their failure to communicate with the very fans who'd put them there in the first place and I wouldn't want to see that scenario replicated.

This week could well herald the opportunity for major change - but change doesn't automatically mean progress. Strengthening the hand of the playground bully is a concept I find fundamentally hard to digest. I just hope it doesn't come back to haunt us.

[Wooden Spoon]

h again, on Jan 14 2007, 09:51 PM, said:

The English Comprehension just goes from bad to worse, doesn't it?

do i get a "see me" written in red ink?

no argument, resorting to the spell checker again. what a truly sad man

[Wooden Spoon]

h again, on Jan 14 2007, 09:51 PM, said:

Buying shares to get a bigger say in the running of the club didn't seem to feature much in all those thousands of posts.

see the dates on the quotes below

death said:

'Sep 29 2006[/color], 08:00 PM' post='112070']
seriously, what share would cfss look to retain?
9%? 20%? 28%?
how many seats,bearing in mind the lack of finances, would cfss demand on the CFC board,and will this be realistic?

death said:

'Sep 30 2006[/color], 10:36 AM' post='112128']
The "golden share" might be one share (government style) or it might be 25%+1. The issue is not new owner one but owner two, owner three and so-on.
I believe that clubs that don't have a significant fan ownership should also have representitives of the people who put the real money in,what cfss would accept, in relation to the value of the club. what i am saying is in return for a share and a seat at the big table, would you accept a bit less than market value, as oppose to all of no investment? a trade off, so to speak.

[h again]

Balearic Mac, on Jan 15 2007, 01:37 PM, said:

I think the notion of more fans representation on the board is worth exploring, but there are several problems here, not least CFSS's inability to raise the necessary funds to purchase more shares. I'd expect membership money has all but stopped coming in and I'm pushed to think of other schemes they've got running to tap into.

Personally, though, I'd not be keen on any of the existing CFSS incumbents being returned to a position of 'representing' the fans. I believe much of the resentment towards them has been down to their failure to communicate with the very fans who'd put them there in the first place and I wouldn't want to see that scenario replicated.

This week could well herald the opportunity for major change - but change doesn't automatically mean progress. Strengthening the hand of the playground bully is a concept I find fundamentally hard to digest. I just hope it doesn't come back to haunt us.

I'm certain there are two of you, you know. The sensible one is a pleasure to talk to.
I'm not going to defend the CFSS communications. I can't work myself up into a state of hysteria about them, but they certainly haven't been very impressive and there's a case for new blood in any representation on the CFC Board, as you say. Personalities are vital in such situations.
As regards the funds to purchase shares, any scheme designed to organise the fans into clubbing together to buy Preference Shares should easily raise enough for at least one more seat on the Board. The prospect of getting 6% interest at the same time as helping the club and getting more fan representation on the Board should produce an overwhelming response. This in addition to the current income of CFSS, which depite some opinions on here is not chicken-feed.
I'm sure that we're all interested in the best possible say for the fans, though I hope Mr. Hubbard is not quite the Stalin crossed with Tarzan that you're suggesting. But if he's the nicest bloke in the world he won't be here forever, and we need to look further ahead.

[fishini]

h again, on Jan 13 2007, 11:22 AM, said:

So you strongly disagree that CFSS should buy Preference Shares and hence another seat on the Board? Funny, you thought it was a good idea earlier in the thread. You see the difficulty in actually arguing with people who don't even know what they think themselves? It's a bit like arguing with blancmange, though in your case I'm probably doing blancmange an injustice.,

Is this not the man and I say man in the loosest term who complains to the moderators about insults that are aimed at him, it seems to me this person who has his head so far up his backside he has had to have a piece of perspex in plant where his naval was so he can see where he's walking is the most insulting of all the board users, his attempts at wit are about as sharp as a bowling bowl, one thing about this idiot is that he is very hard to forget, but its well worth the effort

[h again]

fishini, on Jan 16 2007, 08:46 PM, said:

Is this not the man and I say man in the loosest term who complains to the moderators about insults that are aimed at him, it seems to me this person who has his head so far up his backside he has had to have a piece of perspex in plant where his naval was so he can see where he's walking is the most insulting of all the board users, his attempts at wit are about as sharp as a bowling bowl, one thing about this idiot is that he is very hard to forget, but its well worth the effort

Shame you don't seem able to manage it then, old monster of the deep. You've certainly spent a lot of time cribbing from your Chubby Brown DVD to come up with that lot. But perk up - you're upset now because we played well on Satuday, but we're bound to have an off-day soon to bring the roses back to your cheeks.

[fishini]

h again, on Jan 16 2007, 09:53 PM, said:

Shame you don't seem able to manage it then, old monster of the deep. You've certainly spent a lot of time cribbing from your Chubby Brown DVD to come up with that lot. But perk up - you're upset now because we played well on Satuday, but we're bound to have an off-day soon to bring the roses back to your cheeks.

Chubby Brown is more your level can't stand the the useless cretin not unlike yourself. We played well?