halifax! can they do this?

MarkyMarkD

Kenshaz

Thanks for the kind words.

The reason I don't think that the site rules make much sense, in this regard, is that a signature including all the three lines of narrative I included in the post to which you just replied would take up too much space on the forums and irritate lots of people. And I don't think that most people give a stuff about the background of individual members - they can judge for themselves if people are posting biased cobblers or sensible opinions.

And at the end of the day, almost everything on this site is opinion, not fact. And that includes much of what Martin himself posts or writes in his editorial, as I'm sure he would not fail to acknowledge.

kenshaz

CopperPlate wrote:

:eek: You jest, surely.

:rotfl:

no they are serious,will I have to declare a love child

Hereward

kenshaz wrote:

Mark I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for researching the site rules,although I do not feel comfortable with the fact that you do not intend to abide by them ,perhaps others will now see that it was unfair to criticise,when I was adopting the site structure ,I hope that your post has brought the fact to the attention of all ,and they will declare in future their professional interests. I have always had a great deal of respect for your posts and once again you have highlighted the facts

kenshaz wrote:

Whilst, I had stated that I was not going to respond further ,until you declared your interests. I would wish to congratulate you on your choice of words,they are yours not mine AGENTS OF CORPORATE GREED.I feel that your findings are harsh and unrepresentative of some of the posts on this thread

Last post on this subject, as CooperPlate stated it’s got very far off topic. I have stated my interests in the banking sector; I just felt they you do not need to know my employment history, when it has no relevance to my points. I do not believe that you were trying to reinforce the forum’s rules, but wanted to start a witch-hunt to eliminate points of view that you do not agree with.

I chose the words “agents of corporate greed” with great care as this is the impression I get from people who do not fully understand how organisations work: for example, banks, and building societies, do not make huge profits when you compare their profits before tax and exceptions with their turnover. It just happens that both of the figures just happen to be very large numbers: the same could be said about energy companies.

kenshaz

MarkyMarkD wrote:

Kenshaz

Thanks for the kind words.

The reason I don't think that the site rules make much sense, in this regard, is that a signature including all the three lines of narrative I included in the post to which you just replied would take up too much space on the forums and irritate lots of people. And I don't think that most people give a stuff about the background of individual members - they can judge for themselves if people are posting biased cobblers or sensible opinions.

And at the end of the day, almost everything on this site is opinion, not fact. And that includes much of what Martin himself posts or writes in his editorial, as I'm sure he would not fail to acknowledge.

No but I have a tremendous amount of respect for what he has created ,and he has probably changed peoples lives,this is his world and we should abide by his structure Kind Regards Ken

kenshaz

Hereward wrote:

Last post on this subject, as CooperPlate stated it’s got very far off topic. I have stated my interests in the banking sector; I just felt they you do not need to know my employment history, when it has no relevance to my points. I do not believe that you were trying to reinforce the forum’s rules, but wanted to start a witch-hunt to eliminate points of view that you do not agree with.

I chose the words “agents of corporate greed” with great care as this is the impression I get from people who do not fully understand how organisations work: for example, banks, and building societies, do not make huge profits when you compare their profits before tax and exceptions with their turnover. It just happens that both of the figures just happen to be very large numbers: the same could be said about energy companies.

Mark has highlighted the rules ,which state posts should declare their professional knowledge,you decided to evade the question,and make a joke of the structure

kenshaz

CopperPlate wrote:

Oh, and here was me going to congratulate you on reaching your thousandth post too! Thinking that hatchets should be buried! Hmmm, just shows how wrong one person can be

:beer:
:T
:bdaycake:
can we be

masonic

kenshaz wrote:

I hope that your post has brought the fact to the attention of all ,and they will declare in future their professional interests.

If someone works for a company that is being discussed, I think they should declare it. However, you have levelled totally false accusations at a number of posters (both here and in other threads) in order to try and discredit what they have to say. That is nothing more than a personal attack on the credibility of the poster.

People who engage in that sort of behaviour usually do so because they can find no fault in what has been said. They normally do not have any interest in the discussion taking place, only in promoting their own opinions at discussion's expense.

tomstickland

What an entertaining thread!
I see no "ethical" problem with a bank reserving a DD the previous day.
I'm quite happy with all of my fee-free current acounts.

markmc999

CopperPlate wrote:

:rotfl: How refreshing!! Open, honest and commonsense :rotfl:

Thanks we geordies do try.

Now, whats happened since I went to the pub? :beer:

Hand bags at dawn? sheeesh

Can we all not just have a :grouphug: and a bloody good :dance: ?

:T

kenshaz

No need to emphasize the point any further,the point has been made,declare your professional interests as per site rules.