Rumours and Stuff

[Twizzle]

The top results all pay Google to be there though. Does that make them more true than the nasty shit on page five?

if you cant tell which ones are sponsored then you shouldn't be using google

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

I nominate this

WORSE JOKE OF THE YEAR

That was the intention.

 

[Eelogical]

oh Pou, do I have to post the gay fisherman again ?

Pou would argue that there's no facts proving he's gay.

 

[Twizzle]

Pou would argue that there's no facts proving he's gay.

not sure but I can check with google, the unsponsored results on page 5 obviously

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

Just post it. I think we'd all enjoy it.

 

[Bazal]

WORSTEST.

Meh. I've seen worster

 

[Gary Gutful]

The top results all pay Google to be there though. Does that make them more true than the nasty shit on page five?

Nasty shit on page 5? Why didn't anyone tell me?

 

[Poupou Escobar]

if you cant tell which ones are sponsored then you shouldn't be using google

What about the results Google thinks I should be seeing first, paid or not?

Don't bother answering. I use Bing.

 

[gaffer]

found this on page 5

 

[Bazal]

View attachment 34816 found this on page 5

f**k, so that's what happened to Casper

 

[Glenneel]

Sorry I’ll dumb it down. You “can” stipulate what the price is, but under a bunch of situations, the ATO and banks can also stipulate what the value is regardless of your thoughts. And they do this under things called laws. If you try to break these laws, that is illegal.

I was an accountant with developers as clients. The ATO and banks don't stipulate anything as a developer can sell at any price as long as its at 'arms length'. In a scenario a developer may have 2 blocks left in a sub-division and they've been for sale for some time. They can be discounted, to even less than cost, as long as the sale is to genuine buyers and not say to relatives to help them. The ATO cannot dictate to businesses how they operate as long as there is a likelihood of a profit.

 

[84 Baby]

I was an accountant with developers as clients. The ATO and banks don't stipulate anything as a developer can sell at any price as long as its at 'arms length'.

FFS you haven’t been following very closely have. I can’t be f**ked finding my post but I already said exactly that. So Mr. Accountant for developers, if one of them came to you and said “I’m a fan of the Cowboys and I want to give Taumolololo a bit of money to keep him there. So want I’ve done is written up a contract for one of my properties for $200k less than what I’m selling the other ones for. He doesn’t have to do anything for the money then. Hopefully he’ll stay then. I mean it worked with JT, Bowen, Rod Jensen and Josh Hannay” you wouldn’t at all be concerned?
But anyway, as I’ve reiterated over and over, Mole said selling below market wasn’t illegal. In itself he’s correct, but it can and does often lead to illegal actions particularly when you are selling to a select group of potentially commercially related people. That was all my point was. I don’t assume the alleged people have done anything wrong, but if they were trying to hide it from NRL then it’d be in line with also trying to “hide” it from ATO, etc

 

[TheRam]

Is this you Gary?

 

[Chipmunk]

Obviously this thread has become more Stuff than Rumours...

 

[Bazal]

Geez, imagine there being a lack of rumours in the off season!!

What's the world coming to, FFS!

 

[Gary Gutful]

I love it when people complain about the lack of rumours. If you aren't reading about one, just make one up.

 

[Gary Gutful]

Is this you Gary?

Yes. Please stop sending dick pics.

 

[Tooooks]

Obviously this thread has become more Stuff than Rumours...

I heard a rumour today actually. Sam Backo is back in training and keen to make a comeback.

 

[lingard]

Who decides what is and isn't false?

You?

 

[lingard]

''Available" is a hell of a qualifier. What evidence is available to some is not available to others. If it was we would all have the same beliefs.

So no possibility of different interpretations of the same evidence?