Quatloos!

rumpelstilzchen wrote:

Bones wrote:My apologies to everyone else for all the screenshots.

Don't apologise Bones because I am sure that Tuco will be along later today to post a similar amount of screenshots showing agreements containing "various stamps and endorsements" as evidence to support his claim.

She posted photocopies, you complete and utter cretin

Tuco wrote:
She posted photocopies, you complete and utter cretin

Irrelevant.
I am expecting YOU to post originals showing "various stamps and endorsements"

Tick... tock... tick...tock....tick....tock.......................

rumpelstilzchen wrote:

Tuco wrote:
She posted photocopies, you complete and utter cretin

Irrelevant.
I am expecting YOU to post originals showing "various stamps and endorsements"

Tick... tock... tick...tock....tick....tock.......................

Just to be clear here, are you now trying to make out that your stance is that the agreements are not traded?

Originally, your stance appeared to be that they were traded but "so what?" You then went on to ask for proof that trading them was wrong. If you accept they are being traded then you don't need proof. If you are now denying that they are been traded then why have you only mentioned this, this morning?

Tuco wrote: Just to be clear here, are you now trying to make out that your stance is that the agreements are not traded?

Originally, your stance appeared to be that they were traded but "so what?" You then went on to ask for proof that trading them was wrong. If you accept they are being traded then you don't need proof. If you are now denying that they are been traded then why have you only mentioned this, this morning?

A rubbish attempt at a diversion.

You have stated on this forum :

the only agreements ever to surface later on, contained various stamps and endorsements

Now prove it.
Show us those agreements.........tick....tock.....tick....tock.....tick......tock......

rumpelstilzchen wrote:

Tuco wrote: Just to be clear here, are you now trying to make out that your stance is that the agreements are not traded?

Originally, your stance appeared to be that they were traded but "so what?" You then went on to ask for proof that trading them was wrong. If you accept they are being traded then you don't need proof. If you are now denying that they are been traded then why have you only mentioned this, this morning?

A rubbish attempt at a diversion.

You have stated on this forum :

the only agreements ever to surface later on, contained various stamps and endorsements

Now prove it.
Show us those agreements.........tick....tock.....tick....tock.....tick......tock......

No-Answer the question- Its not even a difficult one.

You appear to be running with the sheep and hunting with the wolves.

You know they are traded don't you Rumps? It just suits your argument NOW to just deny that they are

Again you are attempting to divert because you have nothing with which you can back up your claim.
I can sense you squirming from here.
You have nothing

Big fail, Tuco.

You will not divert me. OK?

rumpelstilzchen wrote:Again you are attempting to divert because you have nothing with which you can back up your claim.
I can sense you squirming from here.
You have nothing

Big fail, Tuco.

You will not divert me. OK?

I wouldn't get creaming your pants just yet Rumps

You may be surprised.

Now why the reluctance to answer the question? Why the secrecy?

You're no better than those crooked bankers are you? Oh sorry, I forgot-We can't criticize those pillars of society on here can we?

Still nothing

Tick....tock.....tick....tock.....tick....tock.....

rumpelstilzchen wrote:Still nothing

Tick....tock.....tick....tock.....tick....tock.....

And still no answer. Why the deceit?

tick...tock

Tuco wrote:
And still no answer.

Correct.
I asked you to post evidence that supports your claim.
You attempted to steer the subject away from the fact that you have fuck-all by asking me a question.
Well, my old son, it doesn't work like that. You might be used to fooling your mates down the pub with your big talk and deflections but it does not work on me. I asked you first, I will not be diverted by your amateurish attempts, so be a good boy and provide the evidence.
That is.....if you can.
It is pointless asking me to answer your question. I won't. First you have to provide those agreements. OK?

Tuco wrote:
If you think I am going to try to justify myself to a sniveling little shit like you, you are very much mistaken. You aren't even man enough to nail your colours to the mast. A pathetic little weasel.

Rough translation: Tuco has got fuck-all evidence.

rumpelstilzchen wrote:

Tuco wrote:
If you think I am going to try to justify myself to a sniveling little shit like you, you are very much mistaken. You aren't even man enough to nail your colours to the mast. A pathetic little weasel.

Rough translation: Tuco has got fuck-all evidence.

Accurate translation-Tuco refuses to play games with sniveling, cowardly little shits when admin are selective as to what remains on the forum.

A request to mods: I would be very grateful if you would not delete Tuco's insulting words. Please leave them up for everyone to see.
Thankyou.

rumpelstilzchen wrote:A request to mods: I would be very grateful if you would not delete Tuco's insulting words. Please leave them up for everyone to see.
Thankyou.

Seconded.

Thanks for the pm Tuco... Appreciate the insult. I have sent you a suitable reply.

Grow up and man up.

You have failed in your argument. Life is too short... Move on...

Bones wrote:Thanks for the pm Tuco... Appreciate the insult. I have sent you a suitable reply.

Grow up and man up.

You have failed in your argument. Life is too short... Move on...

Idiots like you acting like 12 year old schoolgirls does not constitute me "failing in my argument"

Go back and read the thread. One third of the idiots didn't even understand the argument (yourself included) One third did and accepted that agreements were sold but that there was nothing wrong with this. The final third understood the argument but claimed that agreements were not sold.

You can't even agree amongst your silly selves what the correct stance is, so resort to your silly "freetard" templates.

Then we have weasels like Rumps who jumps from one of the three stances to another, in pathetic attempts to argue.

I've shown the majority up for exactly what they are-A bunch of clueless cretins who crave acceptance on the internet. There have been a few genuine posters on here. However, it has been impossible to debate sensibly with them, because of the childish contributions of idiots such as yourself.

So no evidence to support your fanciful claims then... That is all you needed to say.

Bones wrote:So no evidence to support your claims then... That is all you needed to say

Of course I have evidence. I never once said that I didn't. People like you are crying out for evidence yet don't understand what evidence is required-You just ask for it to argue.

Do you really think anyone is going to change their position, regardless of what I post? The majority are self-opinionated muppets who take their internet personas very seriously indeed. You are a prime example of this.

If you were to post evidence, it would allow it to discussed and assesed.

The merits of your evidence could then be evaluated.

You posted over and over again with the same claims, when you could have just posted once with evidence to prove your claim.

The fact remains up until now all we have is your own personal opinion.

If you ever went to Court, or god help someone else went to Court and made the claims you have made, they would be expected to support those claims with evidence.

Post any evidence you have..... Convince people that you are right and I will be first inline to apologise and say that I was wrong.