Re: GH Charged : Wed Sep 24, 2014 9:10 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

Distinction without a difference. Same net effect

What?

It's the same but different?

Or it's two distinct things and they are the same?

I know you have a real difficulty in accepting you may be wrong but come on............

Re: GH Charged : Thu Sep 25, 2014 11:03 am  

cod'ead wrote:

What?

It's the same but different?

Or it's two distinct things and they are the same?

I know you have a real difficulty in accepting you may be wrong but come on............

It means whether you say the RFL announced they were investigating it, or accused him of it is simply a matter of language, in reality it made no material difference. The effect was the same.

Re: GH Charged : Thu Sep 25, 2014 11:08 am  

Andy Gilder wrote:

In fact, the RFL didn't announce they were investigating Hardaker for anything.

They announced that an incident was under investigation. It was Leeds who first put the player's name in the press IIRC.

Hetherington should have kept his mouth shut, let the investigation run its course and then pass comment. He was stupid, and is now trying to bluster his way out of it IMO. Pay the fine, learn your lesson, move on.

The name was already out there,

The RFL's response was like when the Police are asked by the press, Have you arrested Rolf Harris?, and they say, "well i can't confirm that, what i can say is that we arrested an 84 year old Australian man living in Berkshire in relation to historical sex offences committed by celebrities"

Re: GH Charged : Thu Sep 25, 2014 7:10 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

It means whether you say the RFL announced they were investigating it, or accused him of it is simply a matter of language, in reality it made no material difference. The effect was the same.

Only in the same way that you can make a pudding from apples and another one from oranges.

Whatever you make them from, it's still bullshit

Re: GH Charged : Fri Sep 26, 2014 10:08 am  

cod'ead wrote:

Only in the same way that you can make a pudding from apples and another one from oranges.

Whatever you make them from, it's still bullshit

There are more mixed metaphors in there than there are grains of sand in the night sky.

Re: GH Charged : Fri Sep 26, 2014 1:03 pm  

TBH I'm not a big fan of fruit puddings - I can tolerate some fruit cake and a bit of lemon meringue but for me... chocolate sponge or a spotted dick.

Re: GH Charged : Fri Sep 26, 2014 1:12 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

Only in the same way that you can make a pudding from apples and another one from oranges.

Whatever you make them from, it's still bullshit

You're not going to trouble the GBBO with pastry skills like that.

Re: GH Charged : Fri Sep 26, 2014 6:13 pm  

just had rhubarb pie, home made of course, with lashings of custard. damn nice

Re: GH Charged : Fri Sep 26, 2014 6:20 pm  

I wouldn't thank you for rhubarb, no not at all, hate the stuff, I'd leave the rhubarb and just eat the pastry and custard.

In other news I was left in charge of booking our October get-away for six friends, I've booked us three rooms above a bakery shop in The Lakes that bakes pies, cakes and more cakes - you have to get your priorities right when you're booking your holidays.

Re: GH Charged : Fri Sep 26, 2014 6:24 pm  

damn right, but not liking rhubarb? its beautiful stewed, in a pie, flan or, the classic crumble. simply delicious