comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by super phoenix rangers - I drank a lava lamp (U14864)
posted 29 seconds ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by IvanGolacIsMagic (U5291)
posted 1 minute ago
But that doesn't make sense.
It's an automated system so it absolutely should be from when it was received on the system.
What you're suggesting implies that if you read your emails from 'most recent' then you received an email sent two minutes ago before you received an email sent last week simply because you happened to read that one first.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm bored with this now mate. We're just going round in circles.
Just ask yourself this. If it's as you are trying to say then why don't all the ones who voted no present that argument and threaten legal action just on that? If they are right the SPFL will have to cave in. No arguments. Nothing. Yet they haven't.
Furthermore, if they can "change" their vote and taking into account that many feel they've been duped, then why don't more change to a no?
See? None of this is being argued apart from on here.
Which means I'm right and you're a secret bear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So wait if i just dont read my emails they dont count?
I am going to completely change my ways of working.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm pretty sure you won't have a job for long if you decide to do that.
Good luck.
Let us know how you get on etc etc
----------------------------------------------------------------------
i just wont open any emails from the HR team.
comment by super phoenix rangers - I drank a lava lamp (U14864)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by (U14278)
posted 30 seconds ago
comment by super phoenix rangers - I drank a lava lamp (U14864)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by (U14278)
posted 29 seconds ago
Whats the issue anyway?
Null and void was never an option. Why do you think rangers have never pursued that avenue?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't think it should have been either but neither should the option that's been presented.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No other alternatives though. It was either sit and wait till its safe to resume and miss out on European football next year or call it as it is.
Every league around the world will have to just call it as it is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently there were 6 other alternatives.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently the SPFL rejected five of them based on advice from their QC. Apparently.
comment by Tully 1 (U20686)
posted 1 second ago
comment by super phoenix rangers - I drank a lava lamp (U14864)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by (U14278)
posted 30 seconds ago
comment by super phoenix rangers - I drank a lava lamp (U14864)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by (U14278)
posted 29 seconds ago
Whats the issue anyway?
Null and void was never an option. Why do you think rangers have never pursued that avenue?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't think it should have been either but neither should the option that's been presented.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No other alternatives though. It was either sit and wait till its safe to resume and miss out on European football next year or call it as it is.
Every league around the world will have to just call it as it is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently there were 6 other alternatives.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently the SPFL rejected five of them based on advice from their QC. Apparently.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
stinky stinky, would like to see those options
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by super phoenix rangers - I drank a lava lamp (U14864)
posted 29 seconds ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by IvanGolacIsMagic (U5291)
posted 1 minute ago
But that doesn't make sense.
It's an automated system so it absolutely should be from when it was received on the system.
What you're suggesting implies that if you read your emails from 'most recent' then you received an email sent two minutes ago before you received an email sent last week simply because you happened to read that one first.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm bored with this now mate. We're just going round in circles.
Just ask yourself this. If it's as you are trying to say then why don't all the ones who voted no present that argument and threaten legal action just on that? If they are right the SPFL will have to cave in. No arguments. Nothing. Yet they haven't.
Furthermore, if they can "change" their vote and taking into account that many feel they've been duped, then why don't more change to a no?
See? None of this is being argued apart from on here.
Which means I'm right and you're a secret bear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So wait if i just dont read my emails they dont count?
I am going to completely change my ways of working.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm pretty sure you won't have a job for long if you decide to do that.
Good luck.
Let us know how you get on etc etc
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They count but when you get 20 a day from particular pr!cks that copy you on all scheidt even after telling them not to send then the games a bogey.
stinky stinky, would like to see those options
----------------------------------------------------------
stinky stu?
so in summary
f... rangers
f... hearts
shame for thistle though, that one really stinks
comment by Hot Shot Hamish (U21959)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Hot Shot Hamish (U21959)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 minute ago
And the vote isn't cast until it is officially received. A computer does not officially receive anything. It's a method of communication.
Receipt is an acknowledgment of.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They really need to change the name of the Send/Receive button on Outlook.
Its very misleading if the above is true.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No,not at all.
Because a human has to press that button and anything that then downloads will be officially received. By that person.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mailboxes are set on a timer though to refresh (ie send/receive any pending items) every say 5 minutes, 10 minutes etc.
So you only need to hit this button if you want to send or receive mail in the period in between your email system doing it automatically.
But it still does the same thing automatically without human intervention at a predetermined time intervals throughout the day. And most mailboxes are set to do this pretty frequently.
So email is 'received' automatically throughout the course of a day or it can be prompted at any time by hitting the send/receive button.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I realise that.
But which bit of this vote not being received in the "inbox" are people not getting here?
Ah fwck. I can't be rsed any more. You can all have it your way and then just look like a shower of numpties who think they know better than the SPFL, the clubs and all their legal advisors.
You know? All those entities who to my knowledge between them have not once put up a sound case that the original slip must count.
So I'm sure they will all be using this as the basis to throw the proposal out now yes?
Wake me up when that happens.
comment by super phoenix rangers - I drank a lava lamp (U14864)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by super phoenix rangers - I drank a lava lamp (U14864)
posted 29 seconds ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by IvanGolacIsMagic (U5291)
posted 1 minute ago
But that doesn't make sense.
It's an automated system so it absolutely should be from when it was received on the system.
What you're suggesting implies that if you read your emails from 'most recent' then you received an email sent two minutes ago before you received an email sent last week simply because you happened to read that one first.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm bored with this now mate. We're just going round in circles.
Just ask yourself this. If it's as you are trying to say then why don't all the ones who voted no present that argument and threaten legal action just on that? If they are right the SPFL will have to cave in. No arguments. Nothing. Yet they haven't.
Furthermore, if they can "change" their vote and taking into account that many feel they've been duped, then why don't more change to a no?
See? None of this is being argued apart from on here.
Which means I'm right and you're a secret bear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So wait if i just dont read my emails they dont count?
I am going to completely change my ways of working.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm pretty sure you won't have a job for long if you decide to do that.
Good luck.
Let us know how you get on etc etc
----------------------------------------------------------------------
i just wont open any emails from the HR team.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your boss?
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by IvanGolacIsMagic (U5291)
posted 18 seconds ago
The communication first received was the notification to ignore any voting slip that might come in later. That then made it unofficial.
__________________
The date stamp will show that the first notification received was the vote.
The first email read was the instruction to disregard.
It's semantics but it's important. Just because it went into quarantine - and that's the only explanation for what's happened here - doesn't mean that it wasn't RECEIVED first. And my understanding is that it should therefore count.
As for why the SPFL aren't insisting it counts, it's purely because the initial vote was against what the SPFL wanted. I don't think we should be putting our faith in those shameless kants to act appropriately.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Again. Received by what or whom? The computer? Went into spam or junk or whatever?
It really doesn't matter regardless of any date or time stamp no matter how you try and spin it.
It's from when it was officially received. That is a person. That is why any formal letter you ever get will say "from receipt of this letter" and not from the date it was received.
Haven't you ever had a letter from any company saying something along the lines of "please disregard any communication you receive after this letter" before?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
*not from the date it was sent
Even
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The acceptance of any offer is not when it is received, it is when it is posted or given to an official from the post office. You said before that any offer is accepted when it is actually received but this is just not true
comment by super phoenix rangers - I drank a lava lamp (U14864)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by Tully 1 (U20686)
posted 1 second ago
comment by super phoenix rangers - I drank a lava lamp (U14864)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by (U14278)
posted 30 seconds ago
comment by super phoenix rangers - I drank a lava lamp (U14864)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by (U14278)
posted 29 seconds ago
Whats the issue anyway?
Null and void was never an option. Why do you think rangers have never pursued that avenue?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't think it should have been either but neither should the option that's been presented.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No other alternatives though. It was either sit and wait till its safe to resume and miss out on European football next year or call it as it is.
Every league around the world will have to just call it as it is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently there were 6 other alternatives.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently the SPFL rejected five of them based on advice from their QC. Apparently.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
stinky stinky, would like to see those options
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They were sent to all clubs with the voting paper.
Ann Budge confirmed that.
You can't ask for a multiple choice in a case like this.
Present 6 options and to most popular can have less that 20% of the vote.
You have to present a single yes/no resolution.
Aw fwck
grey line is back
So has anyone given Rangers or any other club the advice they need to reject the resolution seeing as this "vote" has to count?
I hope so because not only will it prove me wrong but it means we can have even more resolutions.
What fun
comment by JFK - The Rebel Treble (U8919)
posted 1 minute ago
so in summary
f... rangers
f... hearts
shame for thistle though, that one really stinks
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On the other hand, like Hearts, they've been dire for ages and showed little sign of turning it round. Fans will stick with them and, assuming they actually do well a division down, might attract even more going for promotion?
comment by (U22371)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by IvanGolacIsMagic (U5291)
posted 18 seconds ago
The communication first received was the notification to ignore any voting slip that might come in later. That then made it unofficial.
__________________
The date stamp will show that the first notification received was the vote.
The first email read was the instruction to disregard.
It's semantics but it's important. Just because it went into quarantine - and that's the only explanation for what's happened here - doesn't mean that it wasn't RECEIVED first. And my understanding is that it should therefore count.
As for why the SPFL aren't insisting it counts, it's purely because the initial vote was against what the SPFL wanted. I don't think we should be putting our faith in those shameless kants to act appropriately.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Again. Received by what or whom? The computer? Went into spam or junk or whatever?
It really doesn't matter regardless of any date or time stamp no matter how you try and spin it.
It's from when it was officially received. That is a person. That is why any formal letter you ever get will say "from receipt of this letter" and not from the date it was received.
Haven't you ever had a letter from any company saying something along the lines of "please disregard any communication you receive after this letter" before?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
*not from the date it was sent
Even
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The acceptance of any offer is not when it is received, it is when it is posted or given to an official from the post office. You said before that any offer is accepted when it is actually received but this is just not true
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whats the point in signing that you have received a summons to court? Surely the postman just signs it then in your logic?
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by JFK - The Rebel Treble (U8919)
posted 1 minute ago
so in summary
f... rangers
f... hearts
shame for thistle though, that one really stinks
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On the other hand, like Hearts, they've been dire for ages and showed little sign of turning it round. Fans will stick with them and, assuming they actually do well a division down, might attract even more going for promotion?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As harsh as it sounds this is right.
Close something off and there will be casualties. The alternative is not to close it off.
Maybe we should have a vote.......
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 3 seconds ago
So has anyone given Rangers or any other club the advice they need to reject the resolution seeing as this "vote" has to count?
I hope so because not only will it prove me wrong but it means we can have even more resolutions.
What fun
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm assuming that because no can change to yes that they have to leave the existing resolution open for the 28 days?
comment by New Magnum. The Mild Drover (U16400)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by super phoenix rangers - I drank a lava lamp (U14864)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by Tully 1 (U20686)
posted 1 second ago
comment by super phoenix rangers - I drank a lava lamp (U14864)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by (U14278)
posted 30 seconds ago
comment by super phoenix rangers - I drank a lava lamp (U14864)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by (U14278)
posted 29 seconds ago
Whats the issue anyway?
Null and void was never an option. Why do you think rangers have never pursued that avenue?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't think it should have been either but neither should the option that's been presented.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No other alternatives though. It was either sit and wait till its safe to resume and miss out on European football next year or call it as it is.
Every league around the world will have to just call it as it is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently there were 6 other alternatives.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently the SPFL rejected five of them based on advice from their QC. Apparently.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
stinky stinky, would like to see those options
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They were sent to all clubs with the voting paper.
Ann Budge confirmed that.
You can't ask for a multiple choice in a case like this.
Present 6 options and to most popular can have less that 20% of the vote.
You have to present a single yes/no resolution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So, giving every club a copy of the 'six options' is now considered in some quarters as 'stinky stinky'?
comment by Hoop Dream$ (U14822)
posted 32 seconds ago
comment by (U22371)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by IvanGolacIsMagic (U5291)
posted 18 seconds ago
The communication first received was the notification to ignore any voting slip that might come in later. That then made it unofficial.
__________________
The date stamp will show that the first notification received was the vote.
The first email read was the instruction to disregard.
It's semantics but it's important. Just because it went into quarantine - and that's the only explanation for what's happened here - doesn't mean that it wasn't RECEIVED first. And my understanding is that it should therefore count.
As for why the SPFL aren't insisting it counts, it's purely because the initial vote was against what the SPFL wanted. I don't think we should be putting our faith in those shameless kants to act appropriately.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Again. Received by what or whom? The computer? Went into spam or junk or whatever?
It really doesn't matter regardless of any date or time stamp no matter how you try and spin it.
It's from when it was officially received. That is a person. That is why any formal letter you ever get will say "from receipt of this letter" and not from the date it was received.
Haven't you ever had a letter from any company saying something along the lines of "please disregard any communication you receive after this letter" before?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
*not from the date it was sent
Even
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The acceptance of any offer is not when it is received, it is when it is posted or given to an official from the post office. You said before that any offer is accepted when it is actually received but this is just not true
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whats the point in signing that you have received a summons to court? Surely the postman just signs it then in your logic?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's a fwcking idiot who doesn't know the difference between official receipt and an offer and acceptance, again which has obviously been officially received otherwise there wouldn't be an acceptance.
Contributes absolutely nothing to the site. Zero sense of humour and spends hours trawling through threads to find some inane technicality to chew the rse off for days on end.
Just what is the fwcking point?
Not an original thought of his own.
Glad he's filtered but I still get to see the whining comments when others copy and paste them.
If the title and places are being decided by average points per game I'll be waiting for bears to claim they only lost the league by 0.36 points
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 3 seconds ago
So has anyone given Rangers or any other club the advice they need to reject the resolution seeing as this "vote" has to count?
I hope so because not only will it prove me wrong but it means we can have even more resolutions.
What fun
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm assuming that because no can change to yes that they have to leave the existing resolution open for the 28 days?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or unless everyone closes it out before then by voting I guess
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 50 seconds ago
If the title and places are being decided by average points per game I'll be waiting for bears to claim they only lost the league by 0.36 points
----------------------------------------------------------------------
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 14 minutes ago
So if your leccy bill comes in for £10,347,676.92 you pay it or wait for the letter that says sorry, we may have made a mistake?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Reminds me of a Lee Evans joke about 'estimated bills'
'Mr Evans, we estimate that your electricity bill will be £2000 per year'
'Is that so, I estimate that i owe you fck all!'
How often have we all seen the phrase 'proof of posting does not count as proof of receipt'?
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 59 seconds ago
How often have we all seen the phrase 'proof of posting does not count as proof of receipt'?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mentioned it loads of times Silver.
That and "please ignore any correspondence received after this letter" etc etc
But they are right. Rangers are currently demanding the Dundee vote is counted and the resolution should be thrown out.
So are Thistle, ICT, Hearts etc
Aren't they?
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Hoop Dream$ (U14822)
posted 32 seconds ago
comment by (U22371)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by IvanGolacIsMagic (U5291)
posted 18 seconds ago
The communication first received was the notification to ignore any voting slip that might come in later. That then made it unofficial.
__________________
The date stamp will show that the first notification received was the vote.
The first email read was the instruction to disregard.
It's semantics but it's important. Just because it went into quarantine - and that's the only explanation for what's happened here - doesn't mean that it wasn't RECEIVED first. And my understanding is that it should therefore count.
As for why the SPFL aren't insisting it counts, it's purely because the initial vote was against what the SPFL wanted. I don't think we should be putting our faith in those shameless kants to act appropriately.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Again. Received by what or whom? The computer? Went into spam or junk or whatever?
It really doesn't matter regardless of any date or time stamp no matter how you try and spin it.
It's from when it was officially received. That is a person. That is why any formal letter you ever get will say "from receipt of this letter" and not from the date it was received.
Haven't you ever had a letter from any company saying something along the lines of "please disregard any communication you receive after this letter" before?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
*not from the date it was sent
Even
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The acceptance of any offer is not when it is received, it is when it is posted or given to an official from the post office. You said before that any offer is accepted when it is actually received but this is just not true
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whats the point in signing that you have received a summons to court? Surely the postman just signs it then in your logic?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's a fwcking idiot who doesn't know the difference between official receipt and an offer and acceptance, again which has obviously been officially received otherwise there wouldn't be an acceptance.
Contributes absolutely nothing to the site. Zero sense of humour and spends hours trawling through threads to find some inane technicality to chew the rse off for days on end.
Just what is the fwcking point?
Not an original thought of his own.
Glad he's filtered but I still get to see the whining comments when others copy and paste them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So are you saying that acceptance of an offer is not when it is posted but is only accepted when received?
Sign in if you want to comment
Tainted Tuesday
Page 5 of 20
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
posted on 14/4/20
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by super phoenix rangers - I drank a lava lamp (U14864)
posted 29 seconds ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by IvanGolacIsMagic (U5291)
posted 1 minute ago
But that doesn't make sense.
It's an automated system so it absolutely should be from when it was received on the system.
What you're suggesting implies that if you read your emails from 'most recent' then you received an email sent two minutes ago before you received an email sent last week simply because you happened to read that one first.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm bored with this now mate. We're just going round in circles.
Just ask yourself this. If it's as you are trying to say then why don't all the ones who voted no present that argument and threaten legal action just on that? If they are right the SPFL will have to cave in. No arguments. Nothing. Yet they haven't.
Furthermore, if they can "change" their vote and taking into account that many feel they've been duped, then why don't more change to a no?
See? None of this is being argued apart from on here.
Which means I'm right and you're a secret bear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So wait if i just dont read my emails they dont count?
I am going to completely change my ways of working.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm pretty sure you won't have a job for long if you decide to do that.
Good luck.
Let us know how you get on etc etc
----------------------------------------------------------------------
i just wont open any emails from the HR team.
posted on 14/4/20
comment by super phoenix rangers - I drank a lava lamp (U14864)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by (U14278)
posted 30 seconds ago
comment by super phoenix rangers - I drank a lava lamp (U14864)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by (U14278)
posted 29 seconds ago
Whats the issue anyway?
Null and void was never an option. Why do you think rangers have never pursued that avenue?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't think it should have been either but neither should the option that's been presented.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No other alternatives though. It was either sit and wait till its safe to resume and miss out on European football next year or call it as it is.
Every league around the world will have to just call it as it is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently there were 6 other alternatives.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently the SPFL rejected five of them based on advice from their QC. Apparently.
posted on 14/4/20
comment by Tully 1 (U20686)
posted 1 second ago
comment by super phoenix rangers - I drank a lava lamp (U14864)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by (U14278)
posted 30 seconds ago
comment by super phoenix rangers - I drank a lava lamp (U14864)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by (U14278)
posted 29 seconds ago
Whats the issue anyway?
Null and void was never an option. Why do you think rangers have never pursued that avenue?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't think it should have been either but neither should the option that's been presented.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No other alternatives though. It was either sit and wait till its safe to resume and miss out on European football next year or call it as it is.
Every league around the world will have to just call it as it is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently there were 6 other alternatives.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently the SPFL rejected five of them based on advice from their QC. Apparently.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
stinky stinky, would like to see those options
posted on 14/4/20
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by super phoenix rangers - I drank a lava lamp (U14864)
posted 29 seconds ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by IvanGolacIsMagic (U5291)
posted 1 minute ago
But that doesn't make sense.
It's an automated system so it absolutely should be from when it was received on the system.
What you're suggesting implies that if you read your emails from 'most recent' then you received an email sent two minutes ago before you received an email sent last week simply because you happened to read that one first.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm bored with this now mate. We're just going round in circles.
Just ask yourself this. If it's as you are trying to say then why don't all the ones who voted no present that argument and threaten legal action just on that? If they are right the SPFL will have to cave in. No arguments. Nothing. Yet they haven't.
Furthermore, if they can "change" their vote and taking into account that many feel they've been duped, then why don't more change to a no?
See? None of this is being argued apart from on here.
Which means I'm right and you're a secret bear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So wait if i just dont read my emails they dont count?
I am going to completely change my ways of working.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm pretty sure you won't have a job for long if you decide to do that.
Good luck.
Let us know how you get on etc etc
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They count but when you get 20 a day from particular pr!cks that copy you on all scheidt even after telling them not to send then the games a bogey.
posted on 14/4/20
stinky stinky, would like to see those options
----------------------------------------------------------
stinky stu?
posted on 14/4/20
so in summary
f... rangers
f... hearts
shame for thistle though, that one really stinks
posted on 14/4/20
comment by Hot Shot Hamish (U21959)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Hot Shot Hamish (U21959)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 minute ago
And the vote isn't cast until it is officially received. A computer does not officially receive anything. It's a method of communication.
Receipt is an acknowledgment of.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They really need to change the name of the Send/Receive button on Outlook.
Its very misleading if the above is true.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No,not at all.
Because a human has to press that button and anything that then downloads will be officially received. By that person.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mailboxes are set on a timer though to refresh (ie send/receive any pending items) every say 5 minutes, 10 minutes etc.
So you only need to hit this button if you want to send or receive mail in the period in between your email system doing it automatically.
But it still does the same thing automatically without human intervention at a predetermined time intervals throughout the day. And most mailboxes are set to do this pretty frequently.
So email is 'received' automatically throughout the course of a day or it can be prompted at any time by hitting the send/receive button.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I realise that.
But which bit of this vote not being received in the "inbox" are people not getting here?
Ah fwck. I can't be rsed any more. You can all have it your way and then just look like a shower of numpties who think they know better than the SPFL, the clubs and all their legal advisors.
You know? All those entities who to my knowledge between them have not once put up a sound case that the original slip must count.
So I'm sure they will all be using this as the basis to throw the proposal out now yes?
Wake me up when that happens.
posted on 14/4/20
comment by super phoenix rangers - I drank a lava lamp (U14864)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by super phoenix rangers - I drank a lava lamp (U14864)
posted 29 seconds ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by IvanGolacIsMagic (U5291)
posted 1 minute ago
But that doesn't make sense.
It's an automated system so it absolutely should be from when it was received on the system.
What you're suggesting implies that if you read your emails from 'most recent' then you received an email sent two minutes ago before you received an email sent last week simply because you happened to read that one first.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm bored with this now mate. We're just going round in circles.
Just ask yourself this. If it's as you are trying to say then why don't all the ones who voted no present that argument and threaten legal action just on that? If they are right the SPFL will have to cave in. No arguments. Nothing. Yet they haven't.
Furthermore, if they can "change" their vote and taking into account that many feel they've been duped, then why don't more change to a no?
See? None of this is being argued apart from on here.
Which means I'm right and you're a secret bear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So wait if i just dont read my emails they dont count?
I am going to completely change my ways of working.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm pretty sure you won't have a job for long if you decide to do that.
Good luck.
Let us know how you get on etc etc
----------------------------------------------------------------------
i just wont open any emails from the HR team.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your boss?
posted on 14/4/20
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by IvanGolacIsMagic (U5291)
posted 18 seconds ago
The communication first received was the notification to ignore any voting slip that might come in later. That then made it unofficial.
__________________
The date stamp will show that the first notification received was the vote.
The first email read was the instruction to disregard.
It's semantics but it's important. Just because it went into quarantine - and that's the only explanation for what's happened here - doesn't mean that it wasn't RECEIVED first. And my understanding is that it should therefore count.
As for why the SPFL aren't insisting it counts, it's purely because the initial vote was against what the SPFL wanted. I don't think we should be putting our faith in those shameless kants to act appropriately.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Again. Received by what or whom? The computer? Went into spam or junk or whatever?
It really doesn't matter regardless of any date or time stamp no matter how you try and spin it.
It's from when it was officially received. That is a person. That is why any formal letter you ever get will say "from receipt of this letter" and not from the date it was received.
Haven't you ever had a letter from any company saying something along the lines of "please disregard any communication you receive after this letter" before?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
*not from the date it was sent
Even
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The acceptance of any offer is not when it is received, it is when it is posted or given to an official from the post office. You said before that any offer is accepted when it is actually received but this is just not true
posted on 14/4/20
comment by super phoenix rangers - I drank a lava lamp (U14864)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by Tully 1 (U20686)
posted 1 second ago
comment by super phoenix rangers - I drank a lava lamp (U14864)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by (U14278)
posted 30 seconds ago
comment by super phoenix rangers - I drank a lava lamp (U14864)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by (U14278)
posted 29 seconds ago
Whats the issue anyway?
Null and void was never an option. Why do you think rangers have never pursued that avenue?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't think it should have been either but neither should the option that's been presented.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No other alternatives though. It was either sit and wait till its safe to resume and miss out on European football next year or call it as it is.
Every league around the world will have to just call it as it is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently there were 6 other alternatives.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently the SPFL rejected five of them based on advice from their QC. Apparently.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
stinky stinky, would like to see those options
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They were sent to all clubs with the voting paper.
Ann Budge confirmed that.
You can't ask for a multiple choice in a case like this.
Present 6 options and to most popular can have less that 20% of the vote.
You have to present a single yes/no resolution.
posted on 14/4/20
Aw fwck
grey line is back
posted on 14/4/20
So has anyone given Rangers or any other club the advice they need to reject the resolution seeing as this "vote" has to count?
I hope so because not only will it prove me wrong but it means we can have even more resolutions.
What fun
posted on 14/4/20
comment by JFK - The Rebel Treble (U8919)
posted 1 minute ago
so in summary
f... rangers
f... hearts
shame for thistle though, that one really stinks
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On the other hand, like Hearts, they've been dire for ages and showed little sign of turning it round. Fans will stick with them and, assuming they actually do well a division down, might attract even more going for promotion?
posted on 14/4/20
comment by (U22371)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by IvanGolacIsMagic (U5291)
posted 18 seconds ago
The communication first received was the notification to ignore any voting slip that might come in later. That then made it unofficial.
__________________
The date stamp will show that the first notification received was the vote.
The first email read was the instruction to disregard.
It's semantics but it's important. Just because it went into quarantine - and that's the only explanation for what's happened here - doesn't mean that it wasn't RECEIVED first. And my understanding is that it should therefore count.
As for why the SPFL aren't insisting it counts, it's purely because the initial vote was against what the SPFL wanted. I don't think we should be putting our faith in those shameless kants to act appropriately.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Again. Received by what or whom? The computer? Went into spam or junk or whatever?
It really doesn't matter regardless of any date or time stamp no matter how you try and spin it.
It's from when it was officially received. That is a person. That is why any formal letter you ever get will say "from receipt of this letter" and not from the date it was received.
Haven't you ever had a letter from any company saying something along the lines of "please disregard any communication you receive after this letter" before?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
*not from the date it was sent
Even
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The acceptance of any offer is not when it is received, it is when it is posted or given to an official from the post office. You said before that any offer is accepted when it is actually received but this is just not true
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whats the point in signing that you have received a summons to court? Surely the postman just signs it then in your logic?
posted on 14/4/20
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by JFK - The Rebel Treble (U8919)
posted 1 minute ago
so in summary
f... rangers
f... hearts
shame for thistle though, that one really stinks
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On the other hand, like Hearts, they've been dire for ages and showed little sign of turning it round. Fans will stick with them and, assuming they actually do well a division down, might attract even more going for promotion?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As harsh as it sounds this is right.
Close something off and there will be casualties. The alternative is not to close it off.
Maybe we should have a vote.......
posted on 14/4/20
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 3 seconds ago
So has anyone given Rangers or any other club the advice they need to reject the resolution seeing as this "vote" has to count?
I hope so because not only will it prove me wrong but it means we can have even more resolutions.
What fun
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm assuming that because no can change to yes that they have to leave the existing resolution open for the 28 days?
posted on 14/4/20
comment by New Magnum. The Mild Drover (U16400)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by super phoenix rangers - I drank a lava lamp (U14864)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by Tully 1 (U20686)
posted 1 second ago
comment by super phoenix rangers - I drank a lava lamp (U14864)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by (U14278)
posted 30 seconds ago
comment by super phoenix rangers - I drank a lava lamp (U14864)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by (U14278)
posted 29 seconds ago
Whats the issue anyway?
Null and void was never an option. Why do you think rangers have never pursued that avenue?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't think it should have been either but neither should the option that's been presented.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No other alternatives though. It was either sit and wait till its safe to resume and miss out on European football next year or call it as it is.
Every league around the world will have to just call it as it is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently there were 6 other alternatives.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently the SPFL rejected five of them based on advice from their QC. Apparently.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
stinky stinky, would like to see those options
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They were sent to all clubs with the voting paper.
Ann Budge confirmed that.
You can't ask for a multiple choice in a case like this.
Present 6 options and to most popular can have less that 20% of the vote.
You have to present a single yes/no resolution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So, giving every club a copy of the 'six options' is now considered in some quarters as 'stinky stinky'?
posted on 14/4/20
comment by Hoop Dream$ (U14822)
posted 32 seconds ago
comment by (U22371)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by IvanGolacIsMagic (U5291)
posted 18 seconds ago
The communication first received was the notification to ignore any voting slip that might come in later. That then made it unofficial.
__________________
The date stamp will show that the first notification received was the vote.
The first email read was the instruction to disregard.
It's semantics but it's important. Just because it went into quarantine - and that's the only explanation for what's happened here - doesn't mean that it wasn't RECEIVED first. And my understanding is that it should therefore count.
As for why the SPFL aren't insisting it counts, it's purely because the initial vote was against what the SPFL wanted. I don't think we should be putting our faith in those shameless kants to act appropriately.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Again. Received by what or whom? The computer? Went into spam or junk or whatever?
It really doesn't matter regardless of any date or time stamp no matter how you try and spin it.
It's from when it was officially received. That is a person. That is why any formal letter you ever get will say "from receipt of this letter" and not from the date it was received.
Haven't you ever had a letter from any company saying something along the lines of "please disregard any communication you receive after this letter" before?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
*not from the date it was sent
Even
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The acceptance of any offer is not when it is received, it is when it is posted or given to an official from the post office. You said before that any offer is accepted when it is actually received but this is just not true
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whats the point in signing that you have received a summons to court? Surely the postman just signs it then in your logic?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's a fwcking idiot who doesn't know the difference between official receipt and an offer and acceptance, again which has obviously been officially received otherwise there wouldn't be an acceptance.
Contributes absolutely nothing to the site. Zero sense of humour and spends hours trawling through threads to find some inane technicality to chew the rse off for days on end.
Just what is the fwcking point?
Not an original thought of his own.
Glad he's filtered but I still get to see the whining comments when others copy and paste them.
posted on 14/4/20
If the title and places are being decided by average points per game I'll be waiting for bears to claim they only lost the league by 0.36 points
posted on 14/4/20
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 3 seconds ago
So has anyone given Rangers or any other club the advice they need to reject the resolution seeing as this "vote" has to count?
I hope so because not only will it prove me wrong but it means we can have even more resolutions.
What fun
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm assuming that because no can change to yes that they have to leave the existing resolution open for the 28 days?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or unless everyone closes it out before then by voting I guess
posted on 14/4/20
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 50 seconds ago
If the title and places are being decided by average points per game I'll be waiting for bears to claim they only lost the league by 0.36 points
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 14/4/20
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 14 minutes ago
So if your leccy bill comes in for £10,347,676.92 you pay it or wait for the letter that says sorry, we may have made a mistake?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Reminds me of a Lee Evans joke about 'estimated bills'
'Mr Evans, we estimate that your electricity bill will be £2000 per year'
'Is that so, I estimate that i owe you fck all!'
posted on 14/4/20
How often have we all seen the phrase 'proof of posting does not count as proof of receipt'?
posted on 14/4/20
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 59 seconds ago
How often have we all seen the phrase 'proof of posting does not count as proof of receipt'?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mentioned it loads of times Silver.
That and "please ignore any correspondence received after this letter" etc etc
But they are right. Rangers are currently demanding the Dundee vote is counted and the resolution should be thrown out.
So are Thistle, ICT, Hearts etc
Aren't they?
posted on 14/4/20
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Hoop Dream$ (U14822)
posted 32 seconds ago
comment by (U22371)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by IvanGolacIsMagic (U5291)
posted 18 seconds ago
The communication first received was the notification to ignore any voting slip that might come in later. That then made it unofficial.
__________________
The date stamp will show that the first notification received was the vote.
The first email read was the instruction to disregard.
It's semantics but it's important. Just because it went into quarantine - and that's the only explanation for what's happened here - doesn't mean that it wasn't RECEIVED first. And my understanding is that it should therefore count.
As for why the SPFL aren't insisting it counts, it's purely because the initial vote was against what the SPFL wanted. I don't think we should be putting our faith in those shameless kants to act appropriately.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Again. Received by what or whom? The computer? Went into spam or junk or whatever?
It really doesn't matter regardless of any date or time stamp no matter how you try and spin it.
It's from when it was officially received. That is a person. That is why any formal letter you ever get will say "from receipt of this letter" and not from the date it was received.
Haven't you ever had a letter from any company saying something along the lines of "please disregard any communication you receive after this letter" before?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
*not from the date it was sent
Even
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The acceptance of any offer is not when it is received, it is when it is posted or given to an official from the post office. You said before that any offer is accepted when it is actually received but this is just not true
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whats the point in signing that you have received a summons to court? Surely the postman just signs it then in your logic?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's a fwcking idiot who doesn't know the difference between official receipt and an offer and acceptance, again which has obviously been officially received otherwise there wouldn't be an acceptance.
Contributes absolutely nothing to the site. Zero sense of humour and spends hours trawling through threads to find some inane technicality to chew the rse off for days on end.
Just what is the fwcking point?
Not an original thought of his own.
Glad he's filtered but I still get to see the whining comments when others copy and paste them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So are you saying that acceptance of an offer is not when it is posted but is only accepted when received?
Page 5 of 20
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10