[Mrluvaluva]

It's troll time! Lol. How many times have I seen you being rude to members molecular? Ron21 was too. He didn't have constructive debates. He tried to ridicule people and take pot shots at them. It seems to me that you cannot either, and resort to petty insults because you are not intelligent enough to have a constructive debate. It's not a question of "winning" as you seem to think it is.

[Scarlett.]

I think Heather should get it, she is in debt over lawyers fees

[~Kizwiz~]

Ohh yeah I remember that, but I dont remember ron21 beating anyone and he was so so similar to another usernames disguise..... but its all merges into one really. You see 'molecular' when it comes to debating you tend to think you are the master. Sadly, the 'I win I win' route doesnt really make you look very clever or big for that matter.

[molecular]

Originally posted by ~kizwiz~
You see 'molecular' when it comes to debating you tend to think you are the master.

thats insane thing to say, im rubbish at debating. i can only remeber winning once an it against ruth in this topic. i had argument with spitrfire aswell about northern ireland but itg wernt really debate it was just him givin wrong info.

[Mrluvaluva]

Originally posted by molecular

i can only remeber winning once an it against ruth in this topic.

I can't see any evidence of you "winning" anything? If you ever do. Let me know. I will personally send you a dictionary.

[~Kizwiz~]

Originally posted by molecular

Im rubbish at debating. i can only remeber winning once an it against ruth in this topic.

The thing is 'molecular' I dont see any evidence of winning the debate here, because really, the only thing which has been discussed in the form of debating is whether Heather Mills should get x amount of money. Ruth has been debating but you sadly have reduced it to playground fighting which in all fairness is really isnt debating is it?

[Sunny_01]

debating is not about winning, it is about sharing opinions and if you succeed in convincing someone else that you may be right or at least provoke them into thinking you might be right then yeah you have succeeded. Debating is not saying, this is my opinion, I am right, you are wrong so ner ner.

Being rude to members in an attempt to brow beat them is not pleasant and not acceptable either. As for the so called "IN" crowd, well it is really easy to become a member. You just have to be a little more pleasant, a little more friendly and a lot less abrassive. It isnt a secret gang, it is just a huge network of people who choose to get along for the sake of the forum. That in no way means you have to sacrifice your opinions, you just have to develop the ability to deliver them in a mature manner that can be respected by people, something which seems lost on you.

As for Ron21 I actually thought the guy was ok, I didnt agree with all of his opinions, but I certainly respected his ability to debate and research information. He knew his stuff, which provoked me to think, unlike your thoughts molecular, they provoke no real thought other than very childsih ones which I will not indulge in.

So back to topic then, does she deserve a big pay out?

[molecular]

Originally posted by ~kizwiz~
I dont see any evidence of winning the debate here

people say same thing to ron21. just random people appear out of nowhere saying no you wrong ron blah blah blah and makin no good argument at all. i was on noone side at the time i was just sat back an readin it and ron was winning loads of debates with loads of people but about 5 or 10 people were just sayin no no no no rons wrong rons wrong just because they coujld nt have a debate. not everyone wants to become part of the in crowd some people just want to debate independant.

ok i admit i didnt really win a debate with ruth i just pointed out a silly comment she make but she didnt take it back when i point it out so it as much her fault as me for it becomin childish. and she was the one to take the mick out of my writin. im not bad at writin and i can sometime be better at debatin but whats the point on this forum when everyone throw the toys out the pram when someone like ron21 come along and is good debater. ron was 95% debating and 5% insults, he should be alloowed a bit of insults if everyone else is 100% insults you see what im saying.

an ruth im not fallen out with you but you did talk to me like ****** you know.
anyway got to go now. bye

[GiRTh]

Heather Mills says she is "very, very pleased" with her £24.3m divorce payout - but has questioned the judge's evaluation of Sir Paul McCartney's estate.

Mills 'very pleased' with settlementMr Justice Bennett valued the 65-year-old former Beatle at £400m.

But speaking outside the court, Ms Mills said "everybody knows" he was worth twice that amount.

"A lot of strange things have been going on behind the scenes," she told reporters.

"I won't go into all the horrific details of what has happened because I'm just glad it's over."

She said she would not appeal the decision but intended to appeal against the ruling to make the judgement public.

She said this was because it included private details about the couple's daughter Beatrice, such as where she goes to school.

Sir Paul, who made no comment after the award, is said to be keen to make the public aware of the details of the divorce.

Advertisement
Asked if she thought the former Beatle had been "cruel", Ms Mills said: "I can't say that for the sake of my daughter but my sister does."

She insisted Sir Paul had always wanted the judgement to be public "because he wants to look like this generous Sir Paul".

In a public summary of the judgement, it was confirmed McCartney had been ordered to pay Ms Mills £16.5m, which in addition to her personal assets of £7.8m sees her leave the marriage with £24.3m.

That total is said to include £500,000 that refers to "overspending in the period of separation".

The judgement also revealed Ms Mills had sought an award of £125m, while Sir Paul's initial offer was in the region of £15.8m.


Sir Paul declined to commentAsked if it had been a mistake to represent herself, Ms Mills replied: "Not at all. Lawyers couldn't get anywhere near this figure."

In an outspoken statement outside the High Court, she confirmed four-year-old Beatrice would get only £35,000 a year.

"So, she's obviously meant to travel B class while her father travels A class - but obviously I will pay for that," she said.

She also confirmed her intention to remain in Britain following the conclusion of the divorce, after speculation she would leave the country after the case.

Reacting to Ms Mills statement, Sky News reporter Sara Merchant said: "It's not just the money, she also wants her reputation back.

"Throughout the case, she has been portrayed in an unfavourable light."

The pair, who split in May 2006 after four years together, failed to come to an agreement during a six-day hearing at the High Court in February.

Original Article here

[GiRTh]

It looks like Sir Paul has got his share of the divorce settlment. LOL