16 replies to this topic

[craig]

Quote

CRAIG WHYTE has flogged 102 years of Rangers history by selling the club’s shares in Arsenal.
The latest revelation, which will sicken the club’s supporters, has come to light as part of Record Sport’s explosive investigation into Whyte and the £1 deal he struck to buy Rangers after selling off £24.4 million worth of season tickets to finance his takeover.
Fresh information in our possession now shows how Whyte struck a deal worth more than £230,000 with a consortium called Red and White to sell off the 16 shares and cash in on a historic link between the clubs dating back to 1910.
http://www.dailyreco...86908-23760448/

[Gusmeister]

You think he might have punted the SPL trophy too?

[sinkster]

Dunno, but a guy the spitting image of Whyte was at the door earlier asking if we wanted the garden re-turfed for a decent price...


sinkster©

[craig]

The shares are worth a pretty penny when there was only 16 and they sold for that much

[SheenyBob]

in the grand scheme of things the arsenal tickets mean the square root of heehaw to the gers fans.

[idontbelieveit]

SheenyBob, on 22 February 2012 - 09:30 PM, said:

in the grand scheme of things the arsenal tickets mean the square root of heehaw to the gers fans.

I,ve said it before and I'll say it again.
If you make the rather basic assumption that the question was posed over reals in an heehaw or R^2 Cartesian plane, than imaginary numbers are not up for discussion. Furthermore, the concept of order (less than, greater than) dissolves in the complex number system, which makes delta-epsilon pretty hard to do.

[Bundy]

idontbelieveit, on 23 February 2012 - 02:38 PM, said:

I,ve said it before and I'll say it again.
If you make the rather basic assumption that the question was posed over reals in an heehaw or R^2 Cartesian plane, than imaginary numbers are not up for discussion. Furthermore, the concept of order (less than, greater than) dissolves in the complex number system, which makes delta-epsilon pretty hard to do.

Thanks for clearing that up

[hoopz]

idontbelieveit, on 23 February 2012 - 02:38 PM, said:

I,ve said it before and I'll say it again.
If you make the rather basic assumption that the question was posed over reals in an heehaw or R^2 Cartesian plane, than imaginary numbers are not up for discussion. Furthermore, the concept of order (less than, greater than) dissolves in the complex number system, which makes delta-epsilon pretty hard to do.

welcome to the forum graeme speirs!

[verrix]

idontbelieveit, on 23 February 2012 - 02:38 PM, said:

I,ve said it before and I'll say it again.
If you make the rather basic assumption that the question was posed over reals in an heehaw or R^2 Cartesian plane, than imaginary numbers are not up for discussion. Furthermore, the concept of order (less than, greater than) dissolves in the complex number system, which makes delta-epsilon pretty hard to do.

Careful here. Your wording mixed up the concepts of imaginary and complex numbers, but your meaning comes through all the same.

Bear in mind you can always square a complex number to regain your sense of order (if you're a physicist, think about wavefunctions and probability amplitudes, and the loss of phase).

Also... Welcome to the forum

[JHR]

verrix, on 23 February 2012 - 03:07 PM, said:

Careful here. Your wording mixed up the concepts of imaginary and complex numbers, but your meaning comes through all the same.

Bear in mind you can always square a complex number to regain your sense of order (if you're a physicist, think about wavefunctions and probability amplitudes, and the loss of phase).

Also... Welcome to the forum

This all getting very complicated...

Anyway by selling the shares Whyte confirms exactly what he is "an asset stripper" among other less polite titles

[idontbelieveit]

verrix, on 23 February 2012 - 03:07 PM, said:

Careful here. Your wording mixed up the concepts of imaginary and complex numbers, but your meaning comes through all the same.

Bear in mind you can always square a complex number to regain your sense of order (if you're a physicist, think about wavefunctions and probability amplitudes, and the loss of phase).

Also... Welcome to the forum

I'll keep that in mind in the future, or is it the past?

[craig]

I need to lie down

[verrix]

idontbelieveit, on 23 February 2012 - 08:41 PM, said:

I'll keep that in mind in the future, or is it the past?

You want the past tense, the clause "is it the past?" has no logical meaning

craig, on 23 February 2012 - 10:36 PM, said:

I need to lie down

Don't we all?

JHR, on 23 February 2012 - 04:39 PM, said:

Anyway by selling the shares Whyte confirms exactly what he is "an asset stripper" among other less polite titles

Aye, it's depressing when people don't have respect for the history of a club, worse still are his antics like you say.

Edited by verrix, 24 February 2012 - 07:57 AM.

[idontbelieveit]

verrix, on 24 February 2012 - 07:56 AM, said:

You want the past tense, the clause "is it the past?" has no logical meaning



Don't we all?



Aye, it's depressing when people don't have respect for the history of a club, worse still are his antics like you say.

It took you a while to catch on.
Just think 100,000 sperm and you were the fastest.

[idontbelieveit]

verrix, on 24 February 2012 - 07:56 AM, said:

You want the past tense, the clause "is it the past?" has no logical meaning



Don't we all?



Aye, it's depressing when people don't have respect for the history of a club, worse still are his antics like you say.

"Logic" does not govern a sentence. Sentences are governed by grammar. It must have been understood as you clearly understood the meaning of the sentence as you were refering to the past tense of is. It may not be the most elegant sentence , but it did deliver the message perfectly clearly.
I think the correct term for you is intellectual snob. However, I would say your intellect inclines more to fussbudget.

[Bundy]

So eh...............whit aboot those shares then eh?

[verrix]

idontbelieveit, on 24 February 2012 - 07:02 PM, said:

"Logic" does not govern a sentence.

Last time I checked it governed everything, grammar included. Was just making the point that it never is the past, as the past was before now. Apparently that was lost on you though...

idontbelieveit, on 24 February 2012 - 07:02 PM, said:

I think the correct term for you is intellectual snob. However, I would say your intellect inclines more to fussbudget.

Oh aye you're rivalling Hayza wi' that one. My first reply to you was trying to be helpful, my second was a playful joke... If you canny see past that, then well, I'm havin' nought to do with your ilk.

Bundy, on 24 February 2012 - 07:08 PM, said:

So eh...............whit aboot those shares then eh?

Long gone I'm afraid. So are the stocks of jelly and ice cream doon the toon tho