History for Napier Phoenix

That's what I originally asked - hasn't this Covert Agent been right on a couple of things that were totally unknown to we, the great unwashed? It was a question about CA's credibility to begin with that turned into a question asking for people to provide proof CA was Rallis, and then morphed into a question asking what was Piney's source for just saying its not true to these, now ramblings about how we should be believing Piney because he is more trustworthy than someone we actually don't the identity of. The situation remains - CA makes a statement that prima facie has some ring of truth to it - the open minded want to further test the validity of CA as a reliable source, citing that CA has been right in the past when we all doubted it - then an unfounded [but perhaps true] statement is made that we can't believe CA [even though he has been right before] because CA is an agent called Rallis - further backed up by the reliable Piney who simply says its not true and we are all expected to believe him just because he is Piney and in the absence of any other reason for believing that statement.

At the end of the day, I don't give a rats ass if Morrison is selling the club to anyone, or whether or not CA is Rallis, or what he says is right or wrong,but once again we have a group of people in this forum that fail to apply any proper form of reasoning and immediately cite gossip, rumour and innuendo as proof. They might be happy to live their lives in that way but I'd rather be a little more questioning.

That's what I originally asked - hasn't this Covert Agent been right on a couple of things that were totally unknown to we, the great unwashed? It was a question about CA's credibility to begin with that turned into a question asking for people to provide proof CA was Rallis, and then morphed into a question asking what was Piney's source for just saying its not true to these, now ramblings about how we should be believing Piney because he is more trustworthy than someone we actually don't the identity of. The situation remains - CA makes a statement that prima facie has some ring of truth to it - the open minded want to further test the validity of CA as a reliable source, citing that CA has been right in the past when we all doubted it - then an unfounded [but perhaps true] statement is made that we can't believe CA [even though he has been right before] because CA is an agent called Rallis - further backed up by the reliable Piney who simply says its not true and we are all expected to believe him just because he is Piney and in the absence of any other reason for believing him.

At the end of the day, I don't give a rats ass if Morrison is selling the club to anyone, or whether or not CA is Rallis, or what he says is right or wrong,but once again we have a group of people in this forum that fail to apply any proper form of reasoning and immediately cite gossip, rumour and innuendo as proof. They might be happy to live their lives in that way but I'd rather be a little more questioning.