Talk:Gerald Ronson/Archives/2012

Appeals

I'm confused. A European court ruled that the trial had been unfair. So who appealed against that? Presumably the government, but the implication of the text is that it was Ronson. So why did Ronson appeal a judgement that seems to have been in his favour? --Dweller (talk) 10:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Interview piece

That piece on him[1] is extrawdinrly sycho-wotsit. Du rilly think its suitable for an encyclopedia? Jamaissur

"sycho-wotsit" isn't particularly meaningful, Guy. The link gives far more information about the man than the two other links; in fact, it appears to be the most informative link we have on him. Your interest in Ronson may begin and end at the fact that he was a British Jew who committed fraud, and, of course, in WP:POINT directed at me, but the man actually has a fascinating history. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

srry, sycho-wotsit mns 'sycophantic' (i'm under rtr hvy medication at the mo, so pls xcs simlr lapses). i resent yr accusation tht i am 'guy' or trying 2 disrupt anything: u are the 1 trying to disrupt the free flow of information. googling 'gerald ronson' rvls xctly wht i said: tht he is most famous 4 the guinness affair.

link 1 is 2 an EXTREMELY syc. puff-piece by wht appears 2 b a p.r. agency--

From the foot of his diminutive frame right up to the tip of his cigar, Gerald Ronson is that rarest of animals - a likeable property developer. ... Ronson’s likeable manner and open, friendly bearing... Ronson, like Grade, is a showman, an arms-waving, all-singing, all-dancing talker-up of his projects. He oozes a passion for the business which is infectious to the extent that you find yourself enthusing along with him... But Gerald Ronson is one of that rare breed, a true entrepreneur. In these challenging times, the leisure industry needs him, and his like, more than ever. (n.b. the unpleasant, crypto-antisemitic comment that 'likeable' prprty dvlprs are the 'rarest of creatures'.)

and u claims it's 'informative'--

Ronson’s meteoric rise to the dizzy heights of wealth and success from which he would so spectacularly topple in the property crash of the early 1990s is a tale upon which legends are built.

no mention of his earlier 'spectacular topple' or of the other 'legends' he has spawned. i'm disturbed by yr attempts to 'spin' ronson et al hr, j. pls inform yrsf properly on this case b4 editing again or u wl waste my time and (mr importanlyt) yr own. Jamaissur

Wikipedia talk pages are not instant messaging systems; please try to write in comprehensible English. I'm not really sure what you've been saying, but if you have any evidence that Ronson is best known for his role in the Guinness Four affair, please bring it forward; otherwise it is just original research, which is forbidden on Wikipedia. I'm returning the page to the standard biographical format. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

my evidence for ron's being best-known etc is google, and i object again to the very sycophantic puff-piece being the 1st external link:

What he likes:

Film: Action movies

Hobby: My 3 grandchildren, charity work – but really, my work is my hobby

Car: Mercedes 600 and a twin-turbocharged, 4WD Porsche. I’ve always had an exotic car, like a Ferrari or Lamborghini

TV: Any good drama, “The Vice”, “Casualty”. I might also watch “Blind Date”!

and do u really find his history 'fascinating'? can't say the obsessive pursuit of money and possessions does much 4 me. Jamaissur

Please don't add speculative information to the article regarding the relationship between Ronson's fine and the finances of a billion dollar company in order to WP:POINT, thanks. Also, please see Talk:Anthony_Parnes. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

enough with the WP:POINT already! nor was it orig. res. or speculation. it's obvious that "Ronson's conviction and prison sentence for fraud did not disrupt business excessively" or the company wd hv failed in the 1980s. Jamaissur

But why would someone have imagined it would in the first place? And how do you know it didn't? Do we state in the RadioShack article that "David Edmondson's resignation for falsifying his academic credentials on his resume did not disrupt business excessively"? Bringing up that whole speculation to begin with is original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

it's a central fact of his business career, not smt to be sprung on readers in the final paragr, assuming they get that far. Jamaissur

I think you've confused two issues here; the fraud conviction is mentioned in the very first sentence; what we're talking about now is your insertion of original research; do you have any justification for it, or should we just let it go? Also, you're Talk: comments are slipping back into gibberish again; why don't you just pretend you're copyediting an article on a notorious Holocaust denier, or adding convicted criminals to lists of Jews, then your English should be perfect. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

sorry -- i was forgetting i managed to rescue the opening. like me, irving is not a holocaust denier. but i don't deny he is notorious. (hwp u 'ndrstwd tht.) Jamaissur

Well, it's somewhat off-topic, but of course Irving is a Holocaust denier; at least two Western courts of law have made that finding so far. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

ot: an argument from authority that does not impress me. considering what courts in europe have found over the centuries in relation to yr community, it shouldn't impress u either. Jamaissur