FIXTURESNo upcoming fixtures — check back soon.
FORUM / RUGBY /  A Question of Lawyers - you get the honest ones - like Dave and then you get this

A Question of Lawyers - you get the honest ones - like Dave and then you get this

Started by clevermike318 REPLIES2,604 VIEWS· 12 Oct 2014, 20:32
SHAREXFACEBOOKWHATSAPPTELEGRAMREDDITLINKEDIN
SA
Saffolk
Captain30,741 posts
SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
14 Oct 2014, 22:22
#81
14 Oct 2014, 22:22#81
Moffie it looks like you have eventually conceded defeat regarding this year's predictions and have now resorted to last year's calls. How pathetic and talk about scrapping the bottom.
Let me guess you have me down as denying I made a prediction against France?
Poor old man still searching for my predictions against the World 15, Wales x 2 and Scotland but came across a French one from last year instead....bwhaaahaaaaa. .....classic stuff Moffie
SA
Saffolk
Captain30,741 posts
SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
14 Oct 2014, 22:26
#82
14 Oct 2014, 22:26#82
Trust our resident idiot old Beenkop to reach the conclusion he did.
Stick to quoting the bible you pathetic bible basher.
You have more chance of convincing us that Jess walked on water than anything relating to reality
MO
Mozart
Captain49,914 posts
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
14 Oct 2014, 22:33
#83
14 Oct 2014, 22:33#83
Think about it this way Vetsak. Y ou must be an awful lawyer if the facts support your case, because every poster except you and Maaaik think you are guilty. Condemned by a jury of your peers, you flail around convincing nobody. Whereas I just keep bringing further violations to the courts attention for sentencing.
Do you still practice or have you run out of mugs?
CL
clevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
14 Oct 2014, 23:13
#84
14 Oct 2014, 23:13#84
 Mozart
ait  second - you got it all wrong.   I am not supporting Dave in this case - neither am I supporting you.   I said bring real evidence to the fore - not gibberish that is circulating around under this thread.  If that evidence is produced - whuich was not the case thus far - then I will make up my mind as to who is right and who not so in this case.   
The evidence produced thus far is not convincing and not acceptable - so come up with acceptable evidence and I will support your point of view.
SA
Saffolk
Captain30,741 posts
SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
14 Oct 2014, 23:20
#85
14 Oct 2014, 23:20#85
No that's why I am a damn good lawyer as the good ones know the difference between fact and fiction.
A good lawyer knows he has his man beat when the opposition can't provide material evidence.
Relies on supposition carries no weight at all. We deal in facts and facts alone.
It's simple Moffie provide evidence of my predictions and ill concede I am a poor lawyer.
MO
Mozart
Captain49,914 posts
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
14 Oct 2014, 23:23
#86
14 Oct 2014, 23:23#86

 Damn good lawyers lose their cases....hahaha. Sufficient evidence for a Jury of your Peers Fat Man. 

 

But I'll give you the choice....either the facts are against you....or you are a rotten lawyer.

MO
Mozart
Captain49,914 posts
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
14 Oct 2014, 23:24
#87
14 Oct 2014, 23:24#87
OOMpie save yourself man, the SS Dave Vetsak is going down.
SA
Saffolk
Captain30,741 posts
SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
14 Oct 2014, 23:29
#88
14 Oct 2014, 23:29#88
Moffie no amount of ducking and diving is going to relieve you of the duty to provide the material evidence of my predictions.
It's a simple challenge....rise or concede. .....but Moffie we know you already have your rock picked out.....start crawling old man....you are no match for me.
Material evidence.....that's material evidence that the court is seeking.....Provide and you will be set free.....its that simple old man
MO
Mozart
Captain49,914 posts
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
14 Oct 2014, 23:39
#89
14 Oct 2014, 23:39#89

On the contrary any court system in the world will look past these language tricks and look at intent.

 

Dave I  know a good lawyer when I meet one and based on this feeble performance, I'm sorry to say that does not include you.

 

But the choice is still there....poor facts or poor lawyering.

sharkbok
sharkbok
Captain23,293 posts
sharkbok
sharkbokCaptain23,293 posts
15 Oct 2014, 03:13
#90
15 Oct 2014, 03:13#90
The board majority tribunal has spoken.
Under the jurisdiction of this board:Saffex "Dummy" has been found guilty and charged of being incapable of making Bok predictions. It has been decided that his ability to select a team or express opinions are without substance or any value. 
From this day forth, Saffex is no longer allowed to make selections, predictions, "put money on" or express any other opinion of the chances of winning or losing by the Boks. This includes but is not limited to team selections, game plan, coaching or strategy, and of course not to challenge the proven experts on this forum. (Those who commit to Bok predictions and are frequently correct, and when occasionally incorrect to admit this).
If Saffex wants to take it up with an international court he can, but the jurisdiction of this board holds unless such time/ if ever it can be overturned. 
It is hoped by the majority that Saffex can learn from his fellow posters on this website with a view to being partially competent within the period of 10-15 years.
Saffex was not available to comment upon the release of the forum verdict, but his accomplice "clever"mike is understood to have purchased an Oxford dictionary with the goal of being able to retain the "Willem Alberts poster of the year award". 

MO
Mozart
Captain49,914 posts
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
15 Oct 2014, 04:01
#91
15 Oct 2014, 04:01#91
A little harsh SB. Perhaps we could allow the Sapp  to pick Bok Junior teams. I must say though you carry out the role of a hanging judge with considerably more panache than poor old Sapp in his role of accused and defense attorney.

BE
Beeno1
Captain40,032 posts
BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
15 Oct 2014, 09:04
#92
15 Oct 2014, 09:04#92
 hehehehe.
If you think the creator of the universe can't walk on water you are as daft as a hatter snapster. man ou snapster is floundering on so many fronts!
Game set and match to Moz and co. 
CE
Ceradyne
Pro9,374 posts
CE
CeradynePro9,374 posts
15 Oct 2014, 09:55
#93
15 Oct 2014, 09:55#93
 Damn, it was so funny reading this saga that I missed this one. So, in case ou Maaikie thinks that I have been avoiding it...............


clevermike

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 13467 RE: A Question of Lawyers - you get the honest ones - like Dave and then you get this
October 14, 2014, 15:10:19 Ceradyne
The world 15 ws not a test match and the players did not play as Springboks.  Caps were not awarded for that game at all.  Are you dense or what?  


Are you saying that the fact that it was not a test match negates the fact that ou Dawie predicted that the Boks would lose it?


CL
clevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
15 Oct 2014, 10:29
#94
15 Oct 2014, 10:29#94
 Ceradyne
Whether he predicted a loss or win does not count here.
This issue was about the first Welsh test - Mozart alleges Dave made a prediction that the Welsh in the first test in June would ebat the Springboks.    Dave challenged himto produce the evidence of such an prediction and to date Mozart came up with zero   evidence of any realistic or acceptable evidence.
I am afraid Mozart took a chance here that actually backfired on him - but the rest (Beeno, Sharkbok, yourslef) russhed in tosupport Mozart.   This has led to the situation where a farccical situation has developed.   Those posters who dislikes Dave has created an argument based on a lie and then crucified Dave.
I also cross swords regularly with Dave - but I do not support this type of thing on the part of essentially Mozart.   If he wants to go for sonebody at least he should have credible grounds and for the res t of you to support him is a serious misadventure as well.    
BE
Beeno1
Captain40,032 posts
BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
15 Oct 2014, 10:30
#95
15 Oct 2014, 10:30#95
 Have mercy!!! Hahahhahahahaha when will ou maaaikie and snapster throw in the towe l. 
CE
Ceradyne
Pro9,374 posts
CE
CeradynePro9,374 posts
15 Oct 2014, 10:34
#96
15 Oct 2014, 10:34#96
.    


Beeno1

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 12503 RE: A Question of Lawyers - you get the honest ones - like Dave and then you get this
October 15, 2014, 10:30:56  Have mercy!!! Hahahhahahahaha when will ou maaaikie and snapster throw in the towel. 

Maybe they don't have any towels....



CE
Ceradyne
Pro9,374 posts
CE
CeradynePro9,374 posts
15 Oct 2014, 10:37
#97
15 Oct 2014, 10:37#97

clevermike

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 13469 RE: A Question of Lawyers - you get the honest ones - like Dave and then you get this
October 15, 2014, 10:29:19  Ceradyne
Whether he predicted a loss or win does not count here.
This issue was about the first Welsh test - Mozart alleges Dave made a prediction that the Welsh in the first test in June would ebat the Springboks.    Dave challenged himto produce the evidence of such an prediction and to date Mozart came up with zero   evidence of any realistic or acceptable evidence.
I am afraid Mozart took a chance here that actually backfired on him - but the rest (Beeno, Sharkbok, yourslef) russhed in tosupport Mozart.   This has led to the situation where a farccical situation has developed.   Those posters who dislikes Dave has created an argument based on a lie and then crucified Dave.
I also cross swords regularly with Dave - but I do not support this type of thing on the part of essentially Mozart.   If he wants to go for sonebody at least he should have credible grounds and for the rest of you to support him is a serious misadventure as well.    


This is the current state of affairs....... Moz has taken both you and ou Dawie outside on a clear sunny day and pointed to the sky and told you: "Look, the sky is blue". You both responded with: "Bullsh!t. The sky is pink and unless you can provide any proof that the sky is blue, the sky will remain pink".
CL
clevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
15 Oct 2014, 10:39
#98
15 Oct 2014, 10:39#98
 Beeno
The issue here is - did Mozart made a statement he could not substantiate or not?   If he could I would be on his side - but by now it is evident he invented it.  
Ceradyne
You have progessed - you have earned  an "o" - so you are gettinga "do"  thus far.   Careful - the other two dreaded letter sill be earned by you soon unless youstart behaving.     
BE
Beeno1
Captain40,032 posts
BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
15 Oct 2014, 10:45
#99
15 Oct 2014, 10:45#99
 Mike there is clear indications of who snapster thought would win. he was wrong. No technical sidestepping can change that.Time for youand ou snapster to admit Moz is right and yoiuy were wrong.
What amazes me, and its a huge laugh, is why you both choose to defend such an appallingly weak case. Not as bad I grant you as trying to argue the universe created itself from nothing - the most moronic argument ever made. Sheer refusal to see the truth that there had to be an agent - God. Its a bit like that though.



SA
Saffolk
Captain30,741 posts
SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
15 Oct 2014, 10:48
#100
15 Oct 2014, 10:48#100

Case closed Moffie, no material evidence, no case - its that simple.

 

Trust a laymen to bring intent into the equation. You can raise intent but you need to prove it based on evidence.......much like Oscar intentionally or negligently killing Riva.

 

The whole argument was based on whether I made a prediction or not, not what you think I meant, what you concluded based on my 'money on it' expression or any other half baked deduction.

 

In the real world, law does not operate like that......I will never forget my first test I sat in Legals 1 at Rhodes, it was a paper on abortion that I got a big fat zero for having not studied for it at all. The lecturer informed me that it would have made a great emotional magazine article on the subject, but had nothing to do legal facts and its application.

 

You get the picture old man?  

BO
bobbok...
Captain10,129 posts
BO
bobbok...Captain10,129 posts
15 Oct 2014, 10:54
#101
15 Oct 2014, 10:54#101
 Truth be told , I cannot think of any of the tests this year where either ouMaaik or Dawie picked the Bokke to win ............. resounding defeats were routinely predicted, coupled with obscenities directed at HM.
CE
Ceradyne
Pro9,374 posts
CE
CeradynePro9,374 posts
15 Oct 2014, 11:07
#102
15 Oct 2014, 11:07#102
 Hang on Blob. You better make that games and not tests. You have already seen how ou Dawie's prediction about the game against the World XV was negated because it was not a test.
CL
clevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
15 Oct 2014, 11:14
#103
15 Oct 2014, 11:14#103
 Ceradyne
Mozart said nothinng about the World 15 game when h made an accusation against Dave - it was the Welsh test he was on about.   The World 15 game was a diversion broughtin latter.  The World 15 game has had nothing to do with the issue uner discussion  
Careful of earning the second "o" here - you are rapidly moving towards that one.    
CE
Ceradyne
Pro9,374 posts
CE
CeradynePro9,374 posts
15 Oct 2014, 12:19
#104
15 Oct 2014, 12:19#104
 Technicalities ou Maaikie. Technicalities. The fact is that both you and ou Dawie has been predicting losses by the Boks for almost every game that they played since HM's appointment. That is the reality and that was what Moz and a few others have been trying to get through to you.

Only problem is that neither of you have the balls to admit that you suck at these predictions.
SA
Saffolk
Captain30,741 posts
SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
15 Oct 2014, 12:41
#105
15 Oct 2014, 12:41#105
Vlagshit where are my predictions against the World 15 and Wales x 2 you ignorant prick?  
CL
clevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
15 Oct 2014, 13:12
#106
15 Oct 2014, 13:12#106
Ceradyne 
 I am always conservative in my predictions and when it comes to the final decision - what I predict is what I put on Suprbru - where real predictions are being made.   
This year I made two mistakes iro the Superbru predictions.   I gave the Welsh a win in the 1st test in June and gave the ABs a win at Ellis Park.
What i write on this site is provocation stemming from Meyer's selections.   His squad inclusion of Baklkies Botha and Grthro Steenkamp was BS and he took a hell of a long time to find out that Morne Steyn is a handicap and that Francois Steyn is even worse.
Meyer is sloly moving on the right track - but with Steenkamp and Botha in particular and Matfield - he remains a handicap selector.   But he is coming right slowly and that remains the key to the issue.
The moment Pollard came in - there was animmediate upturn in my expectations - so I am going to wait and see  what Meyer did in the EOYT before I start making real predictions on Superbru. 
      
BL
bluebok
Pro3,977 posts
BL
bluebokPro3,977 posts
15 Oct 2014, 13:25
#107
15 Oct 2014, 13:25#107
 Ok, I want to approach this whole thing from a different point of view.


Saff, what point were you making when you said the following?



Saffex
 
Status: Hall Of Fame 
Posts: 9076RE: Posters predicting a World Win seems to include....
June 05, 2014, 16:05:35Yep, the World side is better than the Bok side so my money would be on the World side. 


If your answer explains it, then we can close the debate.

BE
Beeno1
Captain40,032 posts
BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
15 Oct 2014, 13:39
#108
15 Oct 2014, 13:39#108
 Bluebok how can you possibly think that is a statement suggesting the world side would win!!! You piece of s**t Bwahahhahahaha
No these two think that their many denials will get them off the hook. The truth is the pit gets deeper. Oh the folly of it all!  
Meanwhile cerudunce windpomp thinks he is now a spell check fiend! We know how that will end.
sharkbok
sharkbok
Captain23,293 posts
sharkbok
sharkbokCaptain23,293 posts
15 Oct 2014, 13:56
#109
15 Oct 2014, 13:56#109
 are you blind and stupid Saffex. This is your prediction included above, and copied again. 
bluebok
 
Status: Bok regular 
Posts: 1296RE: A Question of Lawyers - you get the honest ones - like Dave and then you get this
October 14, 2014, 17:11:51 Saffex

Status: Hall Of Fame 
Posts: 9738RE: Your Predictions for Boks v Wales?
November 06, 2013, 23:04:05 Wales to beat that sad excuse of a Bok side
BE
Beeno1
Captain40,032 posts
BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
15 Oct 2014, 13:59
#110
15 Oct 2014, 13:59#110
 That not a prediction it' s a point of view. Bwahahahahhahahaha  - after all he never gave a scoreline! 
sharkbok
sharkbok
Captain23,293 posts
sharkbok
sharkbokCaptain23,293 posts
15 Oct 2014, 14:09
#111
15 Oct 2014, 14:09#111
Yes Beeno.   What a joke......The title of this thread where Saffex makes his prediction that Wales will beat South Africa is called- "Your Predictions of Boks vs Wales". 
Saffex states- "Wales to beat that sad excuse of a Bok side". 
It cant be more clear than that. 
"Clever"mike reaches for the Oxford Dictionary to find the legal representation of prediction not meaning prediction. It actually means "insert lie".  
SA
Saffolk
Captain30,741 posts
SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
15 Oct 2014, 14:10
#112
15 Oct 2014, 14:10#112

Sharktwat, this just confirms how pathetically stupid you are.............check the date you moron?

 

Do us all a favour and refrain from passing any comments on here.......you are profoundly too stupid to do so.

 

Beenkop, you should do the same

 

Game set and match.......I have always maintained how fucking stupid Shark is.........he has just confirmed that........bwhaaaaahaaaaaaa  

sharkbok
sharkbok
Captain23,293 posts
sharkbok
sharkbokCaptain23,293 posts
15 Oct 2014, 14:13
#113
15 Oct 2014, 14:13#113
Every test you say the Boks are going to lose, except maybe against Scotland. We can sit and copy and paste examples from this year, last year or all of of Meyers games. It is the same bull s hit with you. 
How many times do you really need to prove your rugby ignorance. No doubt you will be calling for the Boks to lose again on the end of the year tour, then next year in the world cup etc, etc
CL
clevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
15 Oct 2014, 14:16
#114
15 Oct 2014, 14:16#114
 Sharkbok
I thought you are living in Englmand and understand some English.   You are not even clear on the minimum basis of interpretation of law - the emphasis here is on "unpredictable" and a bet does not at all means a prediction - ti means a chance to make money, depending on the outcome.  . 
Your idiocy in this case reigns supreme.  You first of all runs to support Mozart in a case based on a lie and then goes bananas f urther when I said you better =start thinking what a gamble really represents.   What a farce.
BL
bluebok
Pro3,977 posts
BL
bluebokPro3,977 posts
15 Oct 2014, 14:23
#115
15 Oct 2014, 14:23#115

Bwahahahaha!! 


No man Mike! You can't comment another poster's English with a sentence like this!!!


"I thjough you re living in Englmand and understand soe English."


I know it is petty, but it is kak funny!



sharkbok
sharkbok
Captain23,293 posts
sharkbok
sharkbokCaptain23,293 posts
15 Oct 2014, 14:26
#116
15 Oct 2014, 14:26#116
Clevermike This thread is a laugh about Saffex, not Mozart. 
I am not going to try explain the definition of the Oxford dictionary to you, it would take too long. Also you are not being objective. I suspect that you are just doing a Becs and backing Saffex even if he says the sky is green. You know he is wrong, but given that you both made the same negative predictions you are bound at the hip. 
SA
Saffolk
Captain30,741 posts
SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
15 Oct 2014, 14:29
#117
15 Oct 2014, 14:29#117
Sharktwat, how stupid are you feeling right now......obviously you are tooooooooooo stupid to realise when its a good time to slink away and keep your ignorant gob shut........poor little man brings up a predication I made in 2013.........how profoundly stupid is this A R S E ? 
MO
Mozart
Captain49,914 posts
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
15 Oct 2014, 14:39
#118
15 Oct 2014, 14:39#118

 This comment by Dave on this very string tells us what we are dealing with;

 

"it was a paper on abortion that I got a big fat zero"

 

We are dealing with a big (questionable)....fat(undoubtredly)....zero (couldn't have said it better myself)

 

If we want to play around with words, lets at least be a little clever.....bwaaaaahahahaha!  

PA
Pakie
Captain17,321 posts
PA
PakieCaptain17,321 posts
15 Oct 2014, 14:39
#119
15 Oct 2014, 14:39#119
What bet are you talking about Mike?

Dave didn't make a bet. Read my comment further up in which I put the entire thread where he used the "put money on" comment in perspective, clearly demonstrating that he admitted to predicting a win for the World XV.

This thread is all about a grown man hiding behind legal jargon and semantics because he can't own up to his mistakes. Just like he predicted right at the start of the test season that the Boks will lose and continue losing, and then try to weasel out of it by saying he was talking about the Oz/Nz tests. Only an idiot would believe that.

You are all making the word "prediction" too complicated. A prediction is simply stating what you think will happen. The Oxford defines it as "Say or estimate that (a specified thing) will happen in the future." If Dave says "the Boks will lose unless Morne Steyn is subbed", that's a prediction by the very meaning of the word.
SA
Saffolk
Captain30,741 posts
SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
15 Oct 2014, 14:43
#120
15 Oct 2014, 14:43#120

Ah Moffie you are smarting to......for you have been exposed for being as ignorant as the next man..........just when you thought you belonged in the company of the privileged few, you have come crushing down with the rest.

 

 

Poor Moffie   

↓ LOAD MORE (page 4 of 8)

More from Rugby

More news