Roman

Snowballs, once again you are reading FAR too much into it. Chill!

So let me get this right. Two mods have been posting on this thread and both have chosen to ignore post no 30. How about explaining those new rules again? Or are you ignoring those as well?

Courts aren't interested in insurance documents, which often flout the law. In a case like this, they're only interested in the Sale of Goods Act. It's an open and shut case in my view, and she'd get a complete refund instantly so long as she demanded to talk to the manager - or someone who can actually make a decision. I've used this tactic in the past and it has never failed. Just needs a polite but firm approach.

The easiest way to cut through all the crap is to say to PC World that since they have failed to resolve the issue, they have 48 hours to issue a full refund or be issued with a County Court summons for a full refund and compensation for expenses incurred. If you use the 'small claims' procedure, taking out a summons costs about £25, which is fully refunded by the defendant either when they lose or when they settle beforehand. (and by the way, lawyers are barred from the small claims system, so big guns like PC World can't make the process expensive) I'd be amazed if she didn't get a full refund within minutes of threatening court action.

I think he's having a little go a me, Nick, not you. He's never forgiven me for taking tommac a little less than dead seriously.

Phil, I'll put 50p on getting the thread to page five by the weekend if you can put some extra spin on this - eg, investors pulling out of Charlton because they saw a bigger bargain a bit further south. Or £1 if you can find some entertaining noodlehead to come on here to say they are brokering the deal.

That kind of statement is ALWAYS an opinion, LS. Given your history with RL, you might consider that the more you get embroiled in the 'office politics' of a club, or any organisation for that matter, the less objective you can be. It doesn't mean your views are invalid - but they are just that: views. I'm sure you'll get a quorum on the idea that RL is many things, including an egotist - but the biggest ever, ever?! Sometimes, the closer you are, the less you see.

Good grief, Frank. He effectively gave you advance notice that he and Lowe were about to unite and replace Crouch? That really IS news.

Depends how you look at it (which makes it quite a bit less than a FACT). Which party, other than Conservative or Labour, has governed Britain in the last, say, 50 years?

Being what exactly? History doesn't really bear your concerns out. The most left-leaning President in recent times before Obama was Jimmy Carter. This year is the 30th anniversary of the Camp David Peace Accords - the ONLY Middle East peace agreement that has endured over the years. The Northern Ireland peace process, contrary to Blair's preening self-belief, was strong-armed by Bill Clinton, another Democrat. These are two of the reasons terrorists hate Democrat presidents - and much prefer Republican blow-hards.

Evidence that my rumours are not utter nonsense?

Ah, so he wasn't at the club before that then? And couldn't have arranged any loans?

...because what he should have said was: 'To those who would tear the world down - go right ahead.'

Here's some 'tv'. Watch this. http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?hl=en&q=colin+powell+obama+not+a+muslim&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&resnum=4&ct=title#

On the evidence so far, no.

The weird thing is that Burley, Dodd and JP were all full backs in their playing days - and yet no one seems to see the need for them.

The cheer around the world was deafening. Finally, it's an end of an error.

What is this thread about please?

I think the rumour was that Salz's involvement was as a kind of guarantor - someone who would underwrite the purchase of shares. Assuming that Fulthorpe has, like all good cowboys, ridden into the sunset, the only player left standing in Crouch's camp is Anthony Salz. But Salz is a serious player in what's left of the world of finance. Despite tommac's defamatory posts about his being a doddery old fool, he is still in his fifties, and not so long ago was rumoured to be taking over at the top of Rothschilds Bank (a family which also has a strong Saints association by the way) http://www.moneyweek.com/news-and-charts/anthony-salz-the-city-lawyer-everyone-wants-to-hire.aspx In any case, if Wilde is looking for a distress sale of his shares, as a result of this rumoured liquidity crisis of his, then I imagine Salz would be involved in sorting something out. This of course would simply alter the personnel at the top. I have no idea what would happen about additional investment - and even Morph's elliptical post doesn't suggest anything other than a change of the guard. Long story short: rumour upon rumour. In the end, who knows?

More selective than wrong, I think. Everyone, including Crouch by all accounts, was banking on the Fulthorpe bid. That was the reason for Morph's confidence - and perhaps his over-confidence with a very out-of-character swipe at AC & RL. Who could have guessed that Fulthorpe's bid would lead nowhere? (Answer: most of us, depressingly, after the ludicrous antics of LLS, HMR and the truly odd tommac). As far as I can tell, the only thing that differentiates Fulthorpe from that inglorious trio is that he doesn't appear to suffer from what you might politely call 'anger-management issues'.

Strictly speaking, nick, ONE is defending him. The others are pretty apoplectic at the OP's stupidity. And his sole supporter is complaining that Pearson's weakness is to keep a settled side. Good grief...

The 'report' button is still there, ESB. Anyway, looks like the virtual pooper-scoopers have been by.

This has no place here - or anywhere else for that matter. EDIT: This is not a reference to you, TDD, but to a now-deleted post.

An argument I've frequently had with American friends - those who are quick to get touchy when 'aliens' talk about US politics in a proprietorial way - is that there's a good reason why the rest of the world is always exercised by the outcome of the US presidential elections. Foreigners are by definition on the receiving end of US foreign policy in a way that Americans (apart from the poor bloody infantry) are not. Now this can sometimes be a good thing (Clinton in the Balkans - eventually). Often it is not. Over the years, I've witnessed a lot of the latter, especially in Latin America (notably Pinochet's Chile), Indonesia (East Timor) and South Asia (especially Pakistan, and Iran - where people still suffer the consequences of disastrous US meddling in the 1950s) So when you say, as a generalisation, people see stuff on the telly, I really think you should consider that there's more to it than that for quite a few (millions, in fact) people. The outcome of the election WILL have a bearing on the future of many countries, not least places like Pakistan, whose disintegration will surely be accelerated by a McCain victory. There are many people outside the US who are well informed and have a strong investment in the outcome tomorrow. And for very good reasons.

TDD in wild, grumpy generalisations shock!