[Bullseye]

Re: Points deduction upheld : Fri Jun 13, 2014 2:01 pm  

I think you'll find that tigertot has taken a leaf out of Bulliac's book by using some of his own initials and making it sound like he's a Cas fan.

He's called Igor. He's a recent Slovakian immigrant (steady roger) but has fully assimilated and adopted the Yorkshire slang. To spell his name correctly it is t'Igor Tot.

[Bulliac]

Re: Points deduction upheld : Fri Jun 13, 2014 2:21 pm  

Bullseye wrote:

I think you'll find that tigertot has taken a leaf out of Bulliac's book by using some of his own initials and making it sound like he's a Cas fan.

He's called Igor. He's a recent Slovakian immigrant (steady roger) but has fully assimilated and adopted the Yorkshire slang. To spell his name correctly it is t'Igor Tot.

That's funny and I can relate to it. For many years I was known at work as, t' Ian [pronounced teean].

A bloke with a very strong Yorkshire accent was asked what he'd done with an invoice and replied, "I've give it t'Ian" his part was soon forgotten, but I got t'ian, from the entire office, for the next 20 years. I still use the name t'ian on flickr, the one and only site I don't use Bulliac.

Re: Points deduction upheld : Fri Jun 13, 2014 2:32 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

What ... so you concede you don't KNOW something? Progress in a small way, I suppose, even though it's not an SD issue.

When an official court case number has been posted, it does I think take a special kind of moron to cling on to the vain hope it's not true. And to actually prefer further self-humiliation to quietly checking and either apologising or just fading away. But yes, you have clarified. It's clear that even if a scan of the court papers were posted on here, we know your next post would be "meh - prove those haven't been photoshopped"!

So when Ryan Whitcut said in December 2013 that Khan had issued a statutory demand against him he was fibbing?

Where did you get that number from? Who are the parties involved in the alleged case number you have proferred? How did you acquire it? Where can it be verified as genuine? When is the hearing scheduled for? Who is the solicitor acting for Khan?

Feel free to post scans of court papers. I doubt you are silly enough to post fakes. Still nothing on the £1m?

Re: Points deduction upheld : Fri Jun 13, 2014 3:08 pm  

Bullseye wrote:

I think you'll find that tigertot has taken a leaf out of Bulliac's book by using some of his own initials and making it sound like he's a Cas fan.

He's called Igor. He's a recent Slovakian immigrant (steady roger) but has fully assimilated and adopted the Yorkshire slang. To spell his name correctly it is t'Igor Tot.

Haha cheers Bullseye


Vote UKIP

Re: Points deduction upheld : Fri Jun 13, 2014 4:10 pm  

LiarDweeb wrote:

So when Ryan Whitcut said in December 2013 that Khan had issued a statutory demand against him he was fibbing?

You're back! I was worried we had lost you to the VT.

I call you on your "so". The fact of a claim being issued would, of course, have no bearing on any earlier statutory demand.

LiarDweeb stamped his ickle feet in a huge tantrum, and wrote:

Where did you get that number from? Who are the parties involved in the alleged case number you have proferred? How did you acquire it? Where can it be verified as genuine? When is the hearing scheduled for? Who is the solicitor acting for Khan?

Well, well. You don't sound so damn sure of yourself now, do you? You're almost crying! I know you'd prefer to put your fingers in your ears and pretend like this is not happening.but you were claiming that no such case had been issued, and repeatedly telling me I was lying. Suddenly you are furiously backtracking.

But of course it wouldn't matter what I posted, because we've seen your style, you would come back with increasingly bizarre demands for yet more, flying in the face of reason. It is not in your nature to admit you were dissembling about your knowledge (i.e. lack of) But it's a silly game, and nobody is playing with you any more. If you actually want the info, everyone now gets that you could go and see for yourself. Everyone will also draw their own conclusions if instead of shutting up for a while and doing so, you continue boring the pants off the forum.

Re: Points deduction upheld : Fri Jun 13, 2014 4:23 pm  

Bullseye wrote:

He's called Igor. He's a recent Slovakian immigrant (steady roger) but has fully assimilated and adopted the Yorkshire slang. To spell his name correctly it is t'Igor Tot.

That explains the Marty Feldman eyes.

Re: Points deduction upheld : Fri Jun 13, 2014 5:16 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

You're back! I was worried we had lost you to the VT.

I call you on your "so". The fact of a claim being issued would, of course, have no bearing on any earlier statutory demand.



Well, well. You don't sound so damn sure of yourself now, do you? You're almost crying! I know you'd prefer to put your fingers in your ears and pretend like this is not happening.but you were claiming that no such case had been issued, and repeatedly telling me I was lying. Suddenly you are furiously backtracking.

But of course it wouldn't matter what I posted, because we've seen your style, you would come back with increasingly bizarre demands for yet more, flying in the face of reason. It is not in your nature to admit you were dissembling about your knowledge (i.e. lack of) But it's a silly game, and nobody is playing with you any more. If you actually want the info, everyone now gets that you could go and see for yourself. Everyone will also draw their own conclusions if instead of shutting up for a while and doing so, you continue boring the pants off the forum.

Oh dear. Anyone issued with a statutory demand has 21 days to pay or reach agreement for payment. They have 18 days to ask a judge to set it aside a demand.

As OK Bulls share sale did not take place, how is it that six months down the line from the statutory demand, Khan hasn't actually done anything? You say there is a legal case on going, but can provide no proof.

The reason I ask you those questions is to highlight that the legal case you say is going ahead is a figment of your imagination

The case number you gave is a figment of your imagination.

Had Khan issued statutory demands, he would have had to issue a bankruptcy petition against Whitcut within 4 months or explain to a judge why he hadn't done so in order to have a fresh statutory demand served. Bankruptcy petitions are a matter of public record.

The reason you can't answer any of the questions about who is handling it, when it's due for hearing etc is because it isn't happening.

You are a liar, sir

Re: Points deduction upheld : Fri Jun 13, 2014 5:19 pm  

Leaguedweeb could I politely ask you to f**k off on behalf of most people on here

Re: Points deduction upheld : Fri Jun 13, 2014 5:25 pm  

roger daly wrote:

Leaguedweeb could I politely ask you to f**k off on behalf of most people on here

I think we're stuck with him until he either runs out of man-sized tissues or his wrist gets too sore to type

Re: Points deduction upheld : Fri Jun 13, 2014 5:25 pm  

roger daly wrote:

Leaguedweeb could I politely ask you to f**k off on behalf of most people on here

Preferably back to t&a forum where you fitted in nicely amongst the other morons.