: Mon Apr 27, 2009 3:52 pm  

rhinoms wrote:

He does it every week with player rumour's 99% of them unfounded so it's no surprise really.

The big difference is that rumours about players have nuisance value; spreading malicious rumours about the alleged impending insolvency of a business is a far more serious matter and may well be actionable.

Something that malicious posters on this board should stop and consider before posting potential libel.

: Mon Apr 27, 2009 3:53 pm  

What a twit.

: Mon Apr 27, 2009 3:54 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

I hope a solictors letter found its way to Mr Stephenson's letterbox for his pains. I too am astonished that he would use his column to spread what appears to be pure malicious gossip with no credible source.

Would I be right in thinking that there is at least one legal type well known on this board who feels so strongly about it that he would write the letter for Hood for free...?

: Mon Apr 27, 2009 3:55 pm  

bullsonfire wrote:

What a twit.

Yet more spelling mistakes...what is this board coming too?

: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:24 pm  

For mine Stevo doesn't have his feet on terra firma. Deary me today. Someone needs to get the message out, I bet the coach was fuming. In the second stanza of the game we showed we can cut the mustard so I don't know what he's on about.

: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:30 pm  

How do you disprove strong rumours? I bet they emanated north of the border. Joke.

: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:39 pm  

tigertot wrote:

How do you disprove strong rumours? I bet they emanated north of the border.

Keighley?

: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:43 pm  

Adeybull wrote:

Would I be right in thinking that there is at least one legal type well known on this board who feels so strongly about it that he would write the letter for Hood for free...?

Free? What is this "free" of which ye spake?

: Mon Apr 27, 2009 5:08 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Free? What is this "free" of which ye spake?

IIRC its a quaint, old-fashioned term, considered heretical in legal circles in the same way an actor will not name the Scottish Play. If you use this term ftf with a lawyer, he/she will usually turn ghastly pale, whisper "you named it..." and turn round three times while making undecipherable hand movements and muttering a strange incantation. He/she will then deck you.

It is usually used as part of a standard test whereby the limits of a lawyer fan's commitment and dedication can be precisely ascertained, is it not?

: Mon Apr 27, 2009 5:17 pm  

Adeybull wrote:

IIRC its a quaint, old-fashioned term, considered heretical in legal circles in the same way an actor will not name the Scottish Play. If you use this term ftf with a lawyer, he/she will usually turn ghastly pale, whisper "you named it..." and turn round three times while making undecipherable hand movements and muttering a strange incantation. He/she will then deck you.

It is usually used as part of a standard test whereby the limits of a lawyer fan's commitment and dedication can be precisely ascertained, is it not?

In America I think it is something to do with U2