UK - Tom Crawford - Eviction

[PeanutGallery]

Over here disagreements are fine, provided they are conducted in an ordered manner with evidence being put forward to back up the position adopted.

I think it's because we look for evidence and accept disagreements which means that when they have happened they have been relatively minor, nobody's been called an idiot, and sometimes it's even agreed that the point of contention is irrelevant to the principle issue or issues at hand.

As others have said we do prefer it if people would post up sources to back up the facts on which they base their opinions, but we don't require it to be exhaustive.

Anyway welcome, please contribute!

[vampireLOREN]

ARRRGHH!!!!!!

NEWPOSTER!!!!!!

SHILL!!!!!

GOVERNMENT MISINFORMATION AGENT!!!!!

PAID TROLL!!!!!

WILLING SLAVE!!!!!

BANKSTER!!!!!!


Sorry about that... I was channelling the spirit of getthrownoutofyourhousefree for a moment.

Hope he gets paid more per post than me

I bet he gets on Kak and Mak before you too

[Bones]

I bet he gets on Kak and Mak before you too

[YiamCross]

As far as I know, Mr Ebert doesn't charge for his insanely stupid advice that led to Tom losing his house. As far as I know, he doesn't charge for teaching Guy Taylor about "forensic document analysis". If he does, then he is a scammer as well as a liar (as has been proven in court).

Ebert sounds insane in this conversation where Bradley Knight quickly gives up trying to find out what he's doing to help Tom after his eviction. His voice is a perfect caricature of a mad professor and his words are, well, insane. Would you trust this man with your house? Would you have any sympathy for anyone who did? Good luck if your answer is anything other than a two letter word beginning with N and ending with O, you're going to need it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMtdEfPpCDg

[ArthurWankspittle]

I finally realised who Ebert reminds me of - Ludwig Von Drake.

[YiamCross]

Shome mishtake, shurely?

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... 732&type=1

[longdog]

Over here disagreements are fine, provided you admit that longdog is always right and never point out he's totally inconstant and often contradicts himself.

Corrected for you

[Burnaby49]

I bet he gets on Kak and Mak before you too

What's the big deal? Anybody can get on Kak and Mak.

[Burnaby49]

I am hoping that this peaceful get together, after a few pints will turn into a drunk fueled attempt to retake Castle Crawford.

Shhhh don't tell anyone that is what Craig is secretly trying to organise

Why would anyone want that? Peverse... wanting peaceful things to turn ugly.

Sorry I forgot where who I was referring to here. If I'm straying from logic here, "Wes" / "Burnaby", can someone show me how and why and point me back on the straight and narrow please (so I can join in and poke fun at others) as I'm lost with this at the moment. Please show me where I can delight in others misfortune.

Cheers. I'm trying to get it real hard. Honestly.

From a purely personal perspective it will be as funny as hell -

Don't feed him when he posts nonsense like this. Eventually Wes or I will find his post and move it to his own custom-built pig pen. You can play with him as much as you want there.

[pigpot]

Don't feed him when he posts nonsense like this. Eventually Wes or I will find his post and move it to his own custom-built pig pen. You can play with him as much as you want there.

I apologise if I have posted what you call 'nonsense' "Burnaby49" but as a peaceful individual I don't see why it's nonsense. I don't understand the pay and obey or the big stick approach myself as I've said before a productive work ethic is one built around the carrot and not the stick. So many examples of that are 'out there' it's untrue. Still, I do think what you've done with the 'pig pen' is very good. The use of the 'ban' on what was JREF (now International Skeptics) was laughable. No disagreement only the ban. At the very least here you seem to be promoting discussion and if it falls foul of what this sites administration deems not in line with current policy it is simply moved. Well played, a much better option.

I still need a lot of proof that my peaceful nature and posting style is 'nonsense'.

[pigpot]

Fair enough if that's what your into. From my personal perspective the suffering of others isn't pretty. The intrinsic value of houses is virtually nothing. Land is plentiful. No-one owns land or resources in its most absolute sense. People move on from this earth become dust or whatever takes your fancy. Is there no better way than brute strength to get on while people are here. According to some, I guess not. As I type, whatever floats your boat I suppose. Gotta love WAR eh!

[GH132]

Does any body know what pigpot is on about ?

[longdog]

Not a clue...

[Bones]

I bet he gets on Kak and Mak before you too

What's the big deal? Anybody can get on Kak and Mak.

If you was not a mod, I would have to call you some very rude names

[rumpelstilzchen]

The intrinsic value of houses is virtually nothing. Land is plentiful. No-one owns land or resources in its most absolute sense. People move on from this earth become dust or whatever takes your fancy. Is there no better way than brute strength to get on while people are here.

Then please inform us what you believe should have happened in the specific example of Tom Crawford.
Crawford had entered a legally binding agreement. He agreed to pay specific sums of money in a specific amount of time and he willingly offered the property as security knowing that he could, and probably would, forfeit that property if he did not honour the agreement. Those were the terms he agreed to. At the end of the mortgage term Crawford refused to pay. He has acted in dishonour and the other party has suffered a loss under the terms of the original contract. Now, please explain how you believe the situation should be rectified so that the other party will receive the money they are due. But remember, whichever course of events you propose, at no point must any force whatsoever be used. How would you ensure the B&B receive their money without resorting to any kind of force?
Your turn.

[Burnaby49]

The intrinsic value of houses is virtually nothing. Land is plentiful. No-one owns land or resources in its most absolute sense. People move on from this earth become dust or whatever takes your fancy. Is there no better way than brute strength to get on while people are here.

Then please inform us what you believe should have happened in the specific example of Tom Crawford.
Crawford had entered a legally binding agreement. He agreed to pay specific sums of money in a specific amount of time and he willingly offered the property as security knowing that he could, and probably would, forfeit that property if he did not honour the agreement. Those were the terms he agreed to. At the end of the mortgage term Crawford refused to pay. He has acted in dishonour and the other party has suffered a loss under the terms of the original contract. Now, please explain how you believe the situation should be rectified so that the other party will receive the money they are due. But remember, whichever course of events you propose, at no point must any force whatsoever be used. How would you ensure the B&B receive their money without resorting to any kind of force?
Your turn.

Don't do this, don't start demented discussions with Pigpot. That's what he wants and it only causes problems for we moderators (very few in numbers) who are already overwhelmed by the volume of postings on the UK discussions. Note that I'm doing this past 2AM Vancouver time. We just can't keep up and Pigpot, who is familiar to me through long indirect acquaintance, is demented past your understanding. He lives for responses like yours where you ask him to answer a question. Don't start offering the drunk beside you at the bar free drinks, we mods have to police the results.

[Burnaby49]

If you was not a mod, I would have to call you some very rude names

Bones, some advice. If you finally start showing some serious street creds you might eventually get some pathetic amateurs like Kak and Mak to condescend to recognize that you actually exist. I got that recognition without any effort at all. But you really have to up your game to a much higher level to get worthwhile recognition. When a significant long-tem dedicated Freeman type like Robert Menard puts out a video crapping on you, let's say like this one;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

then maybe I'll acknowledge that you've accomplished something. Maybe. Perhaps.

[Bones]

That's me told lol

[YiamCross]

Now we know why Tom isn't worried, Craig has pots of cash. He's one of two people who between them have made $1.8 million between them in the last 18 months. What's 40 grand to a man of means, he's probably already bought Tom a new place. I hear there was a nice mansion in Herefordshire up for sale not long ago....

http://quickstartchallenge.com/

[Normal Wisdom]

Now we know why Tom isn't worried, Craig has pots of cash. He's one of two people who between them have made $1.8 million between them in the last 18 months. What's 40 grand to a man of means, he's probably already bought Tom a new place. I hear there was a nice mansion in Herefordshire up for sale not long ago....

http://quickstartchallenge.com/

Is this an on-line pyramid selling scheme?