0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: silent majority on May 05, 2018, 11:34:41 amQuote from: Cantley Rover on May 05, 2018, 11:00:59 amQuote from: silent majority on May 05, 2018, 10:57:08 amQuote from: Bentley Bullet on May 05, 2018, 10:01:22 amDidn't Bramall agree with the experiment initially?NoBut as a major shareholder he could have stopped it. The Chairman at the time was JR. Do you not now know how boards of companies work?That's what you wrote Martin, insinuating Ryan had the where-with-all to do as he pleased, which plainly is not the case.
Quote from: Cantley Rover on May 05, 2018, 11:00:59 amQuote from: silent majority on May 05, 2018, 10:57:08 amQuote from: Bentley Bullet on May 05, 2018, 10:01:22 amDidn't Bramall agree with the experiment initially?NoBut as a major shareholder he could have stopped it. The Chairman at the time was JR. Do you not now know how boards of companies work?
Quote from: silent majority on May 05, 2018, 10:57:08 amQuote from: Bentley Bullet on May 05, 2018, 10:01:22 amDidn't Bramall agree with the experiment initially?NoBut as a major shareholder he could have stopped it.
Quote from: Bentley Bullet on May 05, 2018, 10:01:22 amDidn't Bramall agree with the experiment initially?No
Didn't Bramall agree with the experiment initially?
Quote from: silent majority on May 05, 2018, 11:34:41 amQuote from: Cantley Rover on May 05, 2018, 11:00:59 amQuote from: silent majority on May 05, 2018, 10:57:08 amQuote from: Bentley Bullet on May 05, 2018, 10:01:22 amDidn't Bramall agree with the experiment initially?NoBut as a major shareholder he could have stopped it. The Chairman at the time was JR. Do you not now know how boards of companies work?So whilst John Ryan was chairman with 33% were Terry Bramhall and Dick Watson not directors with 33% each?A simple yes or no will do.
Quote from: Cantley Rover on May 05, 2018, 05:13:00 pmQuote from: silent majority on May 05, 2018, 11:34:41 amQuote from: Cantley Rover on May 05, 2018, 11:00:59 amQuote from: silent majority on May 05, 2018, 10:57:08 amQuote from: Bentley Bullet on May 05, 2018, 10:01:22 amDidn't Bramall agree with the experiment initially?NoBut as a major shareholder he could have stopped it. The Chairman at the time was JR. Do you not now know how boards of companies work?So whilst John Ryan was chairman with 33% were Terry Bramhall and Dick Watson not directors with 33% each?A simple yes or no will do.I don't know where you're going with this but are you mixing up directors and shareholders? But the simple answer would be no.
Quote from: Wild Rover on May 05, 2018, 05:00:44 pmQuote from: silent majority on May 05, 2018, 11:34:41 amQuote from: Cantley Rover on May 05, 2018, 11:00:59 amQuote from: silent majority on May 05, 2018, 10:57:08 amQuote from: Bentley Bullet on May 05, 2018, 10:01:22 amDidn't Bramall agree with the experiment initially?NoBut as a major shareholder he could have stopped it. The Chairman at the time was JR. Do you not now know how boards of companies work?That's what you wrote Martin, insinuating Ryan had the where-with-all to do as he pleased, which plainly is not the case.Try reading it without any insinuation. It was a statement of fact.
Quote from: silent majority on May 05, 2018, 06:32:35 pmQuote from: Wild Rover on May 05, 2018, 05:00:44 pmQuote from: silent majority on May 05, 2018, 11:34:41 amQuote from: Cantley Rover on May 05, 2018, 11:00:59 amQuote from: silent majority on May 05, 2018, 10:57:08 amQuote from: Bentley Bullet on May 05, 2018, 10:01:22 amDidn't Bramall agree with the experiment initially?NoBut as a major shareholder he could have stopped it. The Chairman at the time was JR. Do you not now know how boards of companies work?That's what you wrote Martin, insinuating Ryan had the where-with-all to do as he pleased, which plainly is not the case.Try reading it without any insinuation. It was a statement of fact.I have Martin, still reads the same ( blame firmly at Ryans door) Dick Watson and Terry Bramall WERE directors of "Patienceform" ( DRFC ) from Nov 2006 until jan 2012 and could therefore have gone against the experiment, bearing in mind how boardrooms work. they obviously did not.
Yes Glynn it could. But when Martin was asked earlier if TB / DW were in favour of the experiment his one word answer was an emphatic NO.
Ok I rephrase to avoid confusion , was TB in favour. End result emphatic NO .
Quote from: Wild Rover on May 06, 2018, 11:26:33 amOk I rephrase to avoid confusion , was TB in favour. End result emphatic NO .Why was it an emphatic no? It was a straight forward answer to a question.
Quote from: silent majority on May 06, 2018, 11:50:18 amQuote from: Wild Rover on May 06, 2018, 11:26:33 amOk I rephrase to avoid confusion , was TB in favour. End result emphatic NO .Why was it an emphatic no? It was a straight forward answer to a question.It was emphatic because it was a one word answer. With a one word answer there can be no ambiguity, therefore emphatic.
So.....no in the context here-in you reckon is an adjective,
Like one of mine and hounds threads this !
What you are really saying is that the word (NO) as used by SM in his post is not emphatic ( as in clear , precise, no frills etc ). No is considered to be ( correct me if I am wrong) a WORD SENTENCE, as it does not fall into any other catergory ( verb, adverb, noun etc etc), and surely a word sentence can be emphatic. ( again correctme if I am wrong).
In a word NO