Reply With Quote[QUOTE=PSTW;5966123]‘Hire an escort’? C’mon, with his money he could at least afford an E-class or even a porcaOriginally Posted by nick h
[QUOTE=nick h;5957806]You’re doing your absolute best to make sure no f*cker helps you.
If what you wanted was someone to nod and smile, pat you on the head and say ‘there there’ and agree with everything you say, you should have hired an escort, not come to a watch forum.
[QUOTE=PSTW;5966123]‘Hire an escort’? C’mon, with his money he could at least afford an E-class or even a porca
Last edited by Suds; 2nd April 2022 at 19:36.
[QUOTE=Suds;5966130]He’s a 66 year old with a legal team. My money’s on it being a Jaaaaaaaaaaaag.
Anyhow, I didn’t realise this was a six page saga when I made my sage observations. Bit of RTFQ for me.
I don't know why you're still giving that f**king idiot assistance. Let him and his 'legal team' [sic] stumble in the dark.
Absolutely no-one gives a toss. Do try harder to stay away next time, won't you.
For goodness sake. Let it die. (The thread I mean).
Not for the the last time did the bowl of petunias say to itself as it found the Earth coming towards it in a most unusual way, “oh no not again”. HHGTTG
“ Ford... you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.” HHGTTG
I appreciate that this thread went AWOL rather fast, but I can't help but think HM's first post was not helpful, and did not address the timeline of purchase, years elapsing, and insurance claim. There was so obviously something hickey with that, that a reply with 10 paragraphs, 9 of which are "you probably are shit out of luck", and one line of "I would want to know more facts" is not going to calm anyone's tits.
I am not sure. I think it was perfectly fine given whatever facts were provided.
The chronology of events as reported is not as important as you might imagine.
The OP was under the impression that the circumstances of his purchase ensured his own claim to title and precluded any other.
This point could be corrected quickly and my first two lines provided the Latin and English versions of the same legal principle that is pertinent.
My next comment stressed the need for further information.
He had asked "what do you think?", not "how can you make me feel better or calm me down?"
I have continued to provide facts and assistance even after he went all "Will Smith" on us, although I suspect that in return my question of his "legal team" will not be met.
For further context, you may like to consider the OP's earlier appearance on this forum, which is linked to and discussed in this thread.
Last edited by Haywood_Milton; 6th April 2022 at 17:07.
Agree to disagree, I think OP flipped so hard that it's now easy to dismiss him, but the interval between purchase and claim would make 99/100 of use pretty sure that the other claim to ownership was wrong in some way.
The op is clearly a lunatic, and bends over backwards to antagonise forum members.
HM is clearly not a lunatic, and bends over backwards to help forum members.
That may reflect only the inexperience of the notional 99 in such matters.
Even if the claim could have been or indeed was spurious, it need not have been the case from what we knew.
Last edited by Haywood_Milton; 6th April 2022 at 17:59.
That might well be true but HM was only setting it straight that if the watch was reported stolen OP did not have a clear title to it. OP was obnoxious from beginning of the thread and has a history of being such. It is ok in some instances to stand up for someone everyone is piling on but this is certainly not one of them. What HM said in his first response may not have been what OP wanted to hear but I don’t think saying what OP would have liked to hear would have done him any service.
Why would we agree to disagree when we can call in our respective legal teams and settle this in style?
As amusing as this thread is, I'm unclear on who is currently in possession of the watch? Revving up one's legal team suggests it remains in the hands of Rolex or Direct Line?
If I was Rolex, I would just send it to Haywood to sort it out.
Someone who lies about the little things will lie about the big things too.
Ha ha ha 'went all Will Smith on us....'
One of the most strangest threads I’ve come across and it does make me wonder if people also behave this way in real life?
This is real life.
The fact that it is technologically mediated communication doesn't make it any less real or substantive.
Can’t see why it should be. Surely belongs to OP unless proven otherwise by the authorities (whoever that is).
That’s true but it is a lot easier to be a keyboard warrior!
They always decline the opportunity to have a man dance with 16oz Boxing Gloves on I find
RIAC
I don’t tend to log onto the forum much these days to post but do still browse it, but this thread deserves a post so I can add another post to my count. What a roller coaster of a thread!
It's a similar effect when people get in cars ... I wonder if there is a close correlation between aggressive drivers and keyboard warriors?
How much of the UK's cheapest heroin would one have to sell to rack up a personal tax bill that high?I have to admit - I was perplexed. I think you have nailed it.
Rather foolish IMHO, his accountancy team should be offsetting the cost of his legal team against tax.
Definitely. Both situations are to do with our brains still being wired to traditional slow paced life of 99.9% of our existence as a species, and the modern world, with constant micro demands on our attention and on our nervous system. Our environment has evolved at 1000+ times what humanity can comfortably cope with. Our expectations and aspirations have accordingly zoomed up. Whenever we encounter relatively trivial obstacles, we struggle to get perspective in the short term. Serenity now!
Sent from my CLT-L09 using TZ-UK mobile app
Posting Permissions
