Being my rebuttal of Paul Stadinger (the
Jabbering Fuck)'s post, co-starring a Cock-wackin' Monkey-lizard called Erwin
Sell, dated 30th December 2016
In deference to the Jabbering Fuck's
sneak-up condition, I have left the spelling, grammer, punctuation and other
mess alone this time. Well - it's a bit of a one-trick pony anyway!
Before we go further, I might remind you
that Erwin Sell stated in the comments to part one (as always; a quote) "U can drop 10 links in a site all
together use it and twist to make looks as one point because are mengle.", whatever that meant, but it's instructive to see the number
of links he's used in the grand 'Part 2';
it's errr . . . 13 - unlucky for some!
Also, their new post also runs to some
1,600 words AND also concentrates on the later point in my October J'accuse, it's quite clear they aren't
going to deal with all Erwins boo-boo's, but use sleight-of-hand to bore people
to death about Redbox-Blue Box and
then change the subject!
You will by now have seen the stuff I've
posted in response to their 'Part 1',
the idea they are still arguing that these companies aren't connected is
risible, but he seems now to be conflating the parent company with a dockside
(geographical area on a map!), and splitting Redbox into two - an old one he NEVER meant and a new one which IS
the one he meant! He then shows pictures of both companies selling the same
bagatelle and expects us to believe this proves they are not the same toys from
the same factory!
Note - In most of Tai Sang or Blue Box's
literature, or those companies connected to them (Tauber, French-Canadian solicitors &etc.) the Red Box is written as just typed, but of
the four Logo / Trade Mark's I've tracked-down so far - all are Redbox (as one word) so that is how I
write it for all mentions, otherwise I'd only confuse myself and probably
wander-off to do some assumptions!
Just green
today - my bits
===============================================================
Erwin Sell Verus (Oh
God - all the way through! They couldn't even be bothered to edit the titel
block? Isn't that what Russians shout at their horses!) Hugh Walter Part
Two Red Box (Errr . . . it was all about Redbox last time!)
Posted on December 30, 2016 by admin
Erwin Sell Verus Hugh Walter Part Two Red
Box
are back with more in this on going debate . Hugh Walter has stated that Blue box
and Red Box are the same company (because they are).
Erwin disagrees (because he's a fuckwit) and
is putting forth his information (with the
Jabbering Fuck's help/permission) showing otherwise.
It's not a 'debate'
it's a published post!
One note in the last post on this subject I
missspelled (hahaha) Hugh’s last name. This
happens as many of yyou know I have learning disablity, which sneaks up on me.
My readers who got my early list will tell you how I use misspelled the word
silver.
Hark - Is that the
sound of the sympathy card being played? If you're going to cry boo-goo as soon
as it heats-up, you probably shouldn't start a war the stupid cockwomble! They
can just call me Mr. Hugh all the way through instead, I know they only do it
to wind me up, well it works - the Jabbering FUCK!
I've got dyslexia and
brain-damage, but it hasn't stopped me teaching myself to write properly on the
Internet since 2007, nor did his (or my) affliction stop Erwin and the PSTSM
having fun at the expense of the latter fact the other day?
Erwin Sell Verus Hugh Walter Part Two Red
Box RED BOX final clarification debate.
It's not a 'debate'
it's statements of opinion!
From last link of Hugh’s blog.
What link?
Extracted part says.
Extracted from where?
(Part of the administrative section of Tai
Sang industrial Co.LTD HONG KONG Manufacturers of RED BOX and BLUE BOX TOYS ….)
I don't use capitals
like that, is this more of his making it up as he goes along?
Erwin says…
Meaning (says
who? Erwin? He's a fuckwit) a industrial plants located in Tain Sang
Industrial port area -HK that produced-make toys for one company AND other (Red
Box and Blue Box ).Not for one company with two names!!??
Tai Sang / Tain Sang;
hey - let's just not even bother with the facts today!
He has now conflated
a non-existent dock-side area with a historical, still-extant, toy company, in
order to try and 'create' his truth! It is staggering to watch his brain [not]
work!
Oh Christ . . . I
even put the origins of the name in both the October J'accuse and the A-Z entry! He's so fuckwitted, the brotherhood of fuckwitted
fuckwits have banned him for being too fuckwitted.
Tai Sang
anglicised means "Together we
survive", the name chosen as he (Peter Chan Pui) started the business
with some work colleagues from the watch-factory they had all just been fired/made
redundant from. Tain Sang probably means together we drown if it's waterside!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lets just take a time-out here - as there are no other images in this post - and reiterate what just happened; in words of as few syllables as possible . . .
Erwin 'all else' the Cock-wackin' Monkey-Lizard Sell of Sell Toy ably supported by Paul the Jabbering Fuck 'we're back with more' Standinger of Stad's Stuff has just tried to defend himself against charges of MAKING IT UP AS HE GOES ALONG, by inventing an entire geographical area of Asia (which doesn't exist), using a SAMPLE shipping manifests bill of lading form!
Look
Standard search-result - nothing!
Image-search is no more helpful!
Let's try his full description on the 'port'!
After the disingenuous changes to the 1981 Blue Box-Redbox catalogue description and meaning and the Japanese health ministry debacle, this really should be where I rest my case, but Darran seems as keen for Part 3 to publish as I am - so we go on . . . line by line, showing these two muppets to be the cockwombles they are.
This is very poor, Paul Stadinger should be blody ashamed of himself for getting to this point.
This is very poor, Paul Stadinger should be blody ashamed of himself for getting to this point.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It does not indicate at all BLUE BOX was known
as BLUE BOX AND RED BOX as Plastic Warrior stated.
Why would it? And how
has he come to think that it might? It's about Redbox!
Fuck, it's like pulling teeth from a wide-awake lion! When he's not taking
subtlety at face value, he's reading into things - stuff which was never there!
Where's the link, for
someone who loves links so much (except when other people use them!), he seems awfully
keen to draw a conclusion from an apparently random, illiterate paragraph?
And again, in the
posts on 'Part 1' I posted the other day we found Canadian and Australian
evidence of the direct connection, he finds one thing (I originally posted)
which seems to say what he wants it to say, interprets it as that and stops
looking!
If one thing is clear
from all this bollocks, there are literally dozens of 'companies' all owned by Tai Sang with either Redbox or Blue Box in the title, along with Toys, Co., Imports, Exports, Industry, Factory, OEM, VMO, Pty, Fty,
or Ltd.
And there will be
more to find.
The rules in the
various countries where Tai Sang operate
differ from place to place, in Canada you have had a legal owner (Tai Sang), an actual owner/manager (Blue Box) and the brand (Redbox), in Australia, it was clear that
the two (both BB & RB) were 'made' by Tai Sang (in the Aberdeen factory and in Singapore), but Blue Box was chosen for the import
companies title; as basically a wholly-owned subsidiary of BOTH Tai Sang and George Tauber
Meanwhile in more
recent times we've seen BBI as a
brand, and as a company (UK) while elsewhere the full Blue Box International or BBT
/ Blue Box Toys was used - depending
on which part of the group was operating where; I'm sure further research will
reveal the same to be true of Redbox International / RBI
Likewise, in some
countries, one registration (of one title) will comply with local regulations,
in other countries regular re-registrations of all companies, subsidiaries and
brands is necessary, sometimes as often as every ten years is the least that
will satisfy regulators
Yet it's clear from
this and the earlier Part 1, not to mention everything I've called him up on,
that Erwin Sell just doesn't get it, nor does Paul Stadinger.
That is the point Hugh!!
No the point is; he's
being criminally obtuse, or stupid to the point of severe retardation!
Erwin Sell Verus Hugh Walter Part Two Red
Box Trademark
In following LINK posted by Hugh
Erwin Says.
Thank you Hugh. (Pleasure
- if only he'd take it on-board!)
It just confirm same.
How? It's a Redbox page about Redbox, it proves that Tai
Sang (who also own Blue Box) are
the company behind the registering of Redbox...the
guy's too stupid to know what he's looking at or what it says!
RED BOX is register along once again by
Tain Sang Industrial .
'Tai' for fuck's sake
Tai Sang, 'Tain' is something else
entirely - he's forced to fit!
Where it mention Blue Box!?
Read and repeat above
comments in green - for fucking ever!
By the way filing of trademark and
registration was by TAIN SANG…
T. A. I. (no 'n') the
fuckwitted retard of a shit-for-brains!
Also-The link is not an official company
business data .Trademark is a free search engine of publicly available
government records. Trademarkia.com is not a law firm and does not represent
owners listed on page. Is like Wikipedia and could be updated by any one free .So
not an accurate information at all but it serve the purpose of once again as I
mention …
I never said it was
an official company business data
I never said it was a
law firm
I never said it was an
accurate information at all [sic]
So how this proof that (Blue Box (also
known as Blue Box and Red Box)????
I'm not sure I've
said it is? Without a link to the relevant Post I can't comment on the context
I used it in? It seems to be from the News, Views that dealt with Redbox, that post had nothing to do with
Blue Box it was about Redbox and Tai Sang so I wouldn't have suggested it was proof of anything to
do with Blue Box - he's making it up as he goes along again -
hence the lack of post-link to contextualise!
It is however, proof
that Tai Sang (behind some Blue Box registrations) are behind
[some] Redbox registrations!
Erwin Sell Verus Hugh Walter Part Two Red
Box Tain Sang Industrial LTD
What is TAIN SANG INDUSTRAIL Co LTD ???
You tell us, I've
only referred to Tai Sang!
TAI
SANG INDUSTRIAL Co.LTD is complex full of factories importer/exporter
packers buildings-places that just mass produce-export to many areas in the
world for many brands.
Errr...no it isn't,
it's the company founded by Peter Chan Pui and the ex-watchmakers he took with
him!
This 'piece of
evidence' is typical Erwin, it's a [sample] bill of lading for a vessel, a ship
(ships carry boats, boats can't carry ships), taking [nominal] Tai Sang produce (printed tins and gift
boxes) to Los Angeles from Yantain, the shipping-office address being used is
one of the Redbox ones (Room 1203,
East Ocean Centre, 98 Granville Road) too
I think! This man is too funny for the funny-farm!
Again, some of the
information I used in the October 12,000-worder was from such a bill of lading,
so again we have evidence of his Googling as a result of my educating him - too
slowly!
Some companies such BLUE BOX and Red Box
have their factories and export places there.
Errr...no they don't;
firstly because it's an imaginary sheet of paper and won't take the weight of
'factories' and secondly because the one thing that has come from all this
nonsense is a long list of Tai Sang, Blue Box and Redbox facilities,
none of which are in the 'dock area' he may be referring to and which is
actually an html version of a paper sheet? Fuck me sideways with the devils
horns he's so fucking stupid he really has no idea how stupid he is - has he?
They also made for Fisher,IMPERIAL Ja ru
,AVON ….
Yes, all this is from
the A-Z entry I published in October and was all missing from his Blue Box 'Expose' series, it's therefore
rewarding to see him learning from me!
TAI SANG
INDUSTRIAL for BLUE BOX
Company Limited where Blue Box toys
were made in HK mainly. (BLUE BOX) Factory and importer place was located since
1960 at…
The above sentence is
not any form of recognised grammer, makes no sense and can't therefore be used
to assert, imply or assume anything! However with up to three factories in
Singapore and the die-casting plant in Macau (not to mention the vinyl factory
I'm still trying to find a concrete address for) the use of 'in HK mainly' is very, very, wide of the mark!
9/F., Blue Box Factory Building, 25 Hing Wo
Street, Tin Wan, Aberdeen , Hong Kong
This is the Aberdeen
building, now known as 'the Old Blue Box Building' and much covered in the A-Z
entry and the rebuttals to their Part 1
Vice President of Sales ( OEM business) at
Blue Box (OEM) Ltd
Worked for TAI SANG INDUSTRIAL before go to
work for BLUE BOX.
And before that Lok Tai On Toys Limited, and before that
Hoida International (HK) Ltd, he's a consummate
businessman who moves around, Erwin's point is what exactly? That because he
was at Tai Sang then Blue Box they're not connected? I think
we have established the connection, the problem is Erwin/Paul published this Part 2 a few days before my rebuttal to
their Part 1!
Mr Lau was a senior
executive at Tai Sang, until the
passing of Peter Chan Pui, when he - having proved himself at 'head office' -
was sent to run one of the subsidiaries. Why is this all so hard for Erwin the
'factory visitor' to get his head round? Is he just fuckwitted, or deliberately
dishonest?
Erwin Sell Verus Hugh Walter Part Two Red
Box Red Box Information
RED BOX INFORMATION from official business
data bank HK.
Where? Suddenly we're
not getting links to either of the following cut-n-paste jobs? Are we to take
this on trust? From the man who changes the title (and meaning) of a document
he's nicked from Vectis! Who has just written-off an almost identical link
provided by me as:
·
Not an official company business data
·
Not a law firm
·
Not an
accurate information at all [sic]
And yet - his
similarly formatted text is from an un-linked-to 'official business data bank HK.' [sic]
It doesn't matter,
we're in the end game and it's getting so it feels almost cruel to continue.
1-The old branded,not longer in production
It's the same
company! Still going, the fuckwit!
2-The actual (I was always referring too as
main competitor from china in original disputed post )-Start in 1985
Ah! Clarity at last! He's
now got two Redbox companies on the
go, the one he meant and errr . . . the other one! Despite the fact that he has
in Part 1 AND Part 2 managed to link 'both' of them to Blue Box production, catalogues or factories! It's embarrassing -
if you’re the Jabbering Fuck or the alley-boot-boys of the PSTSM!
1-RED BOX COMPANY LIMITED-1964(ONE
trademark register in above link posted by Mr Hugh)
Red Box Company Limited was incorporated on
29 February 1964 (Saturday) and as of 1 October 2015 (Thursday) is a Live
Private Company Limited By Shares.
This Private Company Limited By Shares have been operating for 19289 days. (19298 days divided by a year (365.25) = 52 years, 81-point-something days, allow for leap years, the .25's, the millennium and computer glitches and take 52 away from 2015 (Thursday!) - ie it's still going the fuckwitted fuckwit of all fuckwits!)
This Private Company Limited By Shares have been operating for 19289 days. (19298 days divided by a year (365.25) = 52 years, 81-point-something days, allow for leap years, the .25's, the millennium and computer glitches and take 52 away from 2015 (Thursday!) - ie it's still going the fuckwitted fuckwit of all fuckwits!)
Company Name (Chinese)
紅盒有限公司
Company Type
Private Company Limited By Shares
Date of Incorporation
29 February 1964 (Saturday)
Active Status -Live - HEY! ERWIN! YOU FUCKWIT . . . It's active status is LIVE
- because it's still going!
Remarks
–
Winding Up Mode
– Blank because
it hasn't been wound-up! Fuck he's thick!
Date of Dissolution
– Blank because
it hasn't been dissolved! Fuck he's thick!
Register of Charges
Available
Important Note
–
Name History
Effective From 29 February 1964, Saturday
紅盒有限公司
Oh, here's the link;
it's a remarkably similar aggregator page to the ones I have been using, if not
the same!
Old Fuckwitted
Fuckwit the God of Fuckwits is crying into his soup for Erwin's level of dullardery!
He's posted information he hasn't understood and can't read!
2-RED BOX TOY FACTORY LIMITED-1985
This is the one I original refer to as main
competitor for Blue Box from (“China”) Meaning funded by Chinese not as most HK
old brands funded by western or others such GIANT-Arco,Imperial,Ja-Ru ….
How to unpack that?
Can't be arsed, it's the same fucking company!
RED BOX TOY FACTORY LIMITED.
Company Registration No.: 0158560
Red Box Toy Factory Limited was
incorporated on 20 September 1985 (Friday) and as of 1 October 2015 (Thursday)
is a Live Private Company Limited By Shares.
Private Company Limited By Shares have been
operating for 11415 days.
Company Name (Chinese)
紅盒玩具廠有限公司
Company Type
Private Company Limited By Shares
Date of Incorporation
20 September 1985 (Friday)
Active Status -Live
Remarks
–
Winding Up Mode
–
Date of Dissolution
–
Register of Charges
Available
Important Note
–
Name History
Effective From 20 September 1985, Friday
BOX TOY FACTORY LIMITED
紅盒玩具廠有限公司
Oh, here's the other link;
it's a remarkably similar aggregator page to the ones I have been using, if not
the same!
Basically Erwin is
confusing different plants/offices/legal entities of the same company for
different companies, but only to try and wriggle-out of the fact that he was
wrong to state as fact that they were "… RED BOX is a 1985.Was original funded in HK and united with others
from other toys line in China after 90’s. It has been BLUE BOX main
competitor since from china market.
It has “”wrongly mentioned”” as same or part as Blue Box companies in PW magazine
incorrect. They are two
complete different companies …
BB and RB are only original funded HK
companies still in existence with out interruption and Chinese family owned
till today .BB been much older of
course in 1957
RD now
produced most action figures and articulated learning toys most." When they weren't,
aren't and errrr . . . aren't. Indeed, it would seem that what he's found here
are the registrations for the factory (lower, later 'cos they used Blue Box
facilities at the start) and the Company Office or 'entity' (upper), but there
are so many branches of all the Tai Sang companies I'm only assuming that?
About RED BOX-1985
From Mr Hugh rant
(Erwin ) says…
RED
BOX is a 1985.Was original funded in HK and united with others from other toys
line in China after 90’s. It has been BLUE BOX main competitor since from China
market…
Hugh Walter says….
Which
is it? JB (as fact) (this pertains to an earlier
'fact' of his he seems not to have quoted?) or Red Box (as fact)? That
is not empirical evidence-based research; that is someone bullshitting
falsehoods like sugar-beet plops off an elevator.
Blue Box’s main competitor? Cattle-crud!
What about [alphabetically] Arco (fancy - you said
I said they weren’t in HK the other day, were you making it up again, I think
you were!), Early Light, Jetta, Lion Rock, Lucky, Manley Toys, May
Chong, Qualidux, Soma, or Universal (I’ve left-out those listed in the last
paragraph of this section)? All still in existence in 2010 (to my knowledge)
bar Arco – you’re making it up as you go along…again! ‘That is all I know’? You
know nothing, you make it up! ‘Wrongly mentioned’? Bullshit, it’s a correct
correlation; you’re making it up as you go along AGAIN, not PW contributors!
‘Only original’? Cow-turd! ‘Funded’? By whom? ‘United with others’? What
‘others’? Evidence? Steer-crap – you’re making it up! After 1990? What evidence
do you have for such a specific statement? You’re making it up again! “Citation
Needed”! “Citation Needed”! “Citation Needed”!
Still no citation? No
Evidence, no notheing . . . ♫♫♫This is what it meeeeans when your word
meeeeans nothing at'aaaaalllll♫♫♫ he's still making it up, though rather
badly as he continues to publish stuff he's found which backs up my version -
the truth!
ERWIN RESPONDED.
I said (It has been BLUE BOX main
competitor since from China market.) .Meaning China ,NOT HONG KONG .-Did you
understand that Hugh!???
He shouldn't get impertinent
with me until he scores at least one strike, which he's singularly failed to do
so far! I will however continue to call him a fuckwit because he's proving to
be a fuckwitted fuckwit! 'Since from China market' is a meaningless collection
of four words.
Why you mention companies funded in HK
before ?
Because he did! "… RED BOX is a 1985.Was original funded in HK and united
with others from other toys line in China after 90’s. It has been BLUE BOX main competitor since from
china market.
It has “”wrongly mentioned”” as same or part as Blue Box companies in PW magazine
incorrect. They are two complete different companies …
BB and RB are only original funded HK
companies still in existence with out interruption and
Chinese family owned till today .BB
been much older of course in 1957
RD now
produced most action figures and articulated learning toys most." Do you see? He has
twisted himself in so many knots he is running out of wiggle-room and I have
this awful fear that by the time I publish this, they will have published 'Part
3' and it will STILL be on Redbox-Blue Box!
He is never
going to address the Australians, the French resistance sizes, the '33'
character figures and all the other things he's made up as he goes along, he's
just going to keep banging his head against a brick wall inventing ever more Redboxes to get to THE Redbox he was on about!
Even naming some others that are not active
according to directory listing of Businesses and Companies registered in Hong
Kong?
Or in some cases limited with out a single
web site and factory adders information in the net or else?….
A lot of
contract-manufacturers don't have websites; his point is?
See links bellow of some those you mention
are “competing” with RED BOX.
Manley Toys Limited.?
Or this one!?
BUT;In fact MANLEY TOYS LIMITED file
Bankruptcy in 2016.
Here Bankruptcy data link-.https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/11026174/Manley_Toys_Limited
Hummm . . . I said
"All still in existence in 2010 (to
my knowledge)" so I was correct on that one!
They were all
competing with Redbox in 2010, as they are all contract manufacturers
for Western companies, they may well have gone under or been swallowed-up, if
Peter Chan Pui has passed away, those running older (longer lasting) businesses
will also be falling off this mortal coil, sadly.
You mention too (MAY CHONG!?)I think you
may refer to May Cheongs Toy products.
Another factory small distributes from Hong
Kong ,not China.
No . . . I think I
may refer to May Chong, the Ngan's original
Chiu Chow 100,000-square-foot factory in Kwun Tong, the May Chong who started with toy-flocking, moved into
contract-manufacturing injection mouldings for Durham Industies and Bandai
as well as launching their own branded car range (MC TOY), the same May Chong
who were the first HK company to import German injection-moulding machines, the
same May Chong who were the first HK
Co. to use computer-controlled die-casting (CAM) for later metal cars, the May Chong who expanded into Macau when the
GSP gave them favorable rates and who now make the award-winning Maisto with a staff of 15,000 in the US,
Hong Kong, China and France and who own the Bburago
brand- the FUCKING FUCKED fuckwit!
I think you may refer!
I think you may refer!
What. A. Cunt.
Also you mention.SOMA Toys!?
It was dissolved and not longer in
business.
Here.
I said "All still in existence in 2010 (to my
knowledge)"
Also LUCKY TOYS. Disolved-Not longer in
business. Here.
I said "All still in existence in 2010 (to my
knowledge)" Also with seven or more 'Lucky's does he know if he's got
the right one?! Given the dates in his link - very unlikely!
Also (LION ROCK!?) Disolved t-Not longer in
business.
I said "All still in existence in 2010 (to my
knowledge)"
I can go on but I left the link for you so
you search every company for yourself.
Enjoy!!!
Why? I was right to
stick with a cut-off date of 2010 - when I know they were all interviewed by
Sarah Monks (a book I suggested he hadn't read back in October and which
clearly he still hasn't or he'd not be coming out with half the shite he is),
what's happened to them since is of little interest until I get round to their
A-Z entries and as most of them were contract manufacturers only (no brands, or
no 'known' brands) they have a low priority there.
The point was - he was
saying Blue Box was first (it wasn't)
longest lasting (it isn't) and gave the impression it and Redbox (his totally separate 'Rival'
Redbox) were the only ones they
weren’t/aren’t and he's yet to prove me wrong on any of it? Nor has he tried to
address why? Why did he forget all those rivals? He has - however - clearly
taken the names I gave him and Goggled them - hooray and well done to the lying
cock-whacker!
What was it he said
the other day, oh yes: "U can drop 10 links in a site all together use it and twist to make
looks as one point because are mengle.", well, physician; heal thyself!
Like you can tell the
thieves on a housing estate (Project) as they are the only chaps to have locks
on their bin stores, so he reveals one of his 'making in up as he goes along'
tricks - as he did with the Facebook-spying paranoia the other day in Part 1, how safe are you from Erwin's
visits to Google, with your name? Probably safer than me!
Erwin Sell Verus Hugh Walter Part Two Red
Box About Red Box
About RED BOX toys. I was referring as to
be original Chinese funded IN 1985,meaning by Chinese owned original people,not
companies funded in HK by Americans or others before or HONG KONG original
people.
This is simply not
English? Redbox (like Blue Box) is only funded from Tai Sang, a family owned privately
listed (no public shares) company, he pretends to 'know' the toy trade, big
business, China/Hong Kong (not forgetting the Japanese health ministry) but he
clearly doesn't understand what's happening even though he's central to it!
You spend too much time extracting and
deviating or adding words to minor short comments posted by me and trying to
twist or confuse my words …..
I have only ever
quoted him in full with all typos and dumb-phone related spelling and
grammatical errors, so the above sentence - while not recognised English - is libellous,
though, not for the first time!
IF Actual RED BOX Toys is related to the
1960’s same trade mark listed register by TIN SANG Industrial or similar brand
with base in HK too which I did not imply but you did in your comments. I do
not know for sure but actual Red Box has a very likable logo and very looking
as older RED BOX brand logo as well. Any ways. I did not mention it as been
same as you assume I suggested.
Tin / Tai / Tain; hey
- let's just not even bother with the facts today! More non-standard English
makes it very difficult to decipher this paragraph, but as he seems to be
sticking with the two Redbox theory;
it can be ignored.
Never Assume !!!!
He really doesn't understand
the concept of assumption does he? It's far better to assume something
(provided you make it clear that that's what you're doing) than it is to make
stuff up as you go along, or draw conclusions (assumptions) from half-of-nothing
and present it as fact - which are the same thing - telling lies!
Assumption for Beginners - I went to the bus stop at 8.59 to catch the 9.00, at 9.01 the bus
still hadn't come so I assumed it was running late? I didn’t imagine it was
consumed by a large frog after deliberately turning down the off-ramp for the
motorway and fighting on-coming traffic until it was swallowed by the enormous
amphibian! I rang my boss and told him I assumed it was running late, I didn't
go on Twittsface.com with a Photoshopped meme of the frog thing - Erwin is
running around our hobby with lots of frog-things.
In fact after this post you corrected and
said now a different tale.
It was not a 'different tale' it was
more/additional/updated information, again a lack of a link to the Post shows
he's being disingenuous!
Here from you(Mr Hugh) in your blog site.
Mr Hugh says…
(Therefore Tai Sang weren’t renamed Blue
Box (the impression given by the owner of both companies in his interviews with
Sarah Monks), but rather that Blue Box were created as a separate entity
following the conversation with/visit to Cecil Coleman, with Red box following
a few years later – they first appear in the mid-1970’s; allowing for the brief
entry in Garratt, published 1980/1.)
ERWIN RESPONDED -conclusion.
So again Mr Hugh.
Are you confused or confusing all in your
blog.?
Errr . . . no, I was
not confused, I was sure that Peter Chan Pui in favouring 'his baby' Blue Box as the stand-alone brand (in a
way Redbox never was) in the
interview with Sarah Monks had given the false impression (in a primary
reference source) that Tai Sang had
been replaced after the Colman's incident
and the 'invention' of Blue Box.
In point of fact,
subsequent research reveals that up until his sad demise he was head of all
three (and several other companies) and indeed his №2 'CK' remains at the head of them to this day
(or a few weeks ago when I was last looking!).
Because - unlike
Erwin - I don't make it up as I go along, and assuming (that tricky word he
doesn't actually understand) other people also believed or might believe the
common story, I thought it best to update people with the facts, it's called a
learning curve? And - had I not - you'd have had very little to go on in these
two shit-fest rants of yours!
We now know (the one
and ONLY) Redbox followed a little
sooner - mid-'60's) which will be in the corrected A-Z entries, so it is fair
to say I should have used a question mark after the 'Garratt dates' point, as I
was a few years out, but other than that there's nothing to be ashamed about in
that Blog Post!
Last samples pictures samples of older RED
BOX brand trademark toys copies of Blue Box sold under the sole(RED BOX ) LOGO
Erwin Sell Verus Hugh Walter Part Two Red
Box Photos
Both two brands packing clear show
different logs individual brand packed-cards using similar toys.
But under different brands. (Brands aren't 'Rival' companies; I do believe you've
just admitted defeat?)
More possible packed by TIN SANG INDUSTRIAL
factories for both different separated companies.
Uughh! TIN again! Furfuckssakes!
Once again indicating both RED BOX and BLUE
BOX sold as separated entities/companies with respective logo since 60 s.
Is he saying they are
entities, companies or brands, the three being very different, but then; his
total lack of knowledge of these things - while trying to bluff it - means he's
not too sure himself, he's just never going to admit he made it up as he went
along! Pathetic really?
Picture Below show individual figure horse
stamp mark (Red Box bellow) Indicating figures were separated identify to be
for RED BOX not Blue Box when made .As well every BB is mark BB bellow.
Not RB & BB .
{Two pictures provided - See
Stad's post}
Two shots of what
looks to be a well sculpted large-scale (dolls?) horse, proves he can find
stuff on eBay and download it! Nothing else? But all his 'evidence' is what he
can find on t'Internet spun to say what he wants it to say?
All three main arms
make and design their own, other peoples and each other's products, the fact
that you can find a new sculpt on-line marked with one logo says nothing other
than this house was sold (or only made?) by Redbox
at some point. Remember the male dolls have Redbox
equipment in a Blue Box carton with a
Blue Box doll.
Zoo sets (original copies of Britain and
other brands ) pack and sold under older Trademark RED BOX with Old logo in
pack.
{See Stad's for picture}
No, the old logo is
on the above horse, the zoo sets have the later ('till quite recently) logo as
all four logos I've found are for THE SAME COMPANY!
Zoo sets by BLUE BOX using same animals and
pack as BLUE BOX from 60’s-70s as well.
{See Stad's for picture}
Well, they possessed
the moulds, so no surprise there? His point is what exactly?
So - let me get this
straight in my head . . . he wants us to believe that because he can prove
(with eBay images) that Red Box and Blue Box sold THE SAME farm and zoo animals,
they MUST be unconnected! This is too lame!
As an aside; It's worth
noteing that the Redbox are garishly
decorated with airbrushes in bright colours; the Blue Box being more muted and hand-painted, Redbox were aimed at a lower price bracket, despite often
containing the Blue Box factory product.
Dinosaur Pin ball pocket game show the
Original BLUE BOX early 60 all plastic case
next to later verssion from 80s from BB too
and the RED BOX exact copied sold by Red Box
{Three images provided -
see Stad's post}
So - let me get this
straight in my head . . . he wants us to believe that because he can prove
(with eBay images) that Red Box and Blue Box sold THE SAME dinosaur bagatelle,
they MUST be unconnected! This is too funny for one of Byron's farces!
"Un'CONNEC-TED?!!!"
"Yes Lady Bracknell, it appears they were made
in the same factory to the point of being identical with identical backing-card
artwork of a T-Rex but then sold by two totally unconnected firms!"
Too funny! The
picture's the fucking same - the dimwitted fucking dullard! They've got the
same stock-code for fuck's sake! They're both made in Singapore - where Blue Box had at least 3 plants . . .
Fuck!
The cards are both
late-1970's or early 80's full-colour photo-realistic artwork, Blue Box in the 1960's used errr . .
. blue boxes! Fuck! And all three are
identical so I don't know what the 'all
plastic case' point means, but then I'm beginning to realise nothing Erwin
says means anything!
♫♫♫This is what it meeeeans when your word
meeeeans nothing at'aaaaalllll♫♫♫
Garage parking lot(also sold and
distributed under SEARS made generic in HK was sold by RED BOX and Blue box as
separated pack box.
Note two different packing case with logos.
{Three images provided -
see Stads post}
So - let me get this
straight in my head . . . he wants us to believe that because he can prove
(with eBay images) that Red Box and Blue Box sold THE SAME multi-story, they
MUST be unconnected! This is too funny for Gilbert and Sullivan!
And it's not 'made generic in HK' it's a Tai Sang, Blue Box or Redbox OEM
which all three admit to in the very links he's posted! Jesus wept for the
knowing that we'd all be reading this shit! What evidence does he have for such
a sweeping statement? Instead of dealing with the existing queries over his
'facts' he's back to making it up as he goes along!
This last section is
particularly tedious, proving only that his entire database appears to be (and
can be 'assumed' to be!) the Internet, he clearly hasn't read-up the books I
suggested he hadn't read in my J'accuse,
although he is starting to regurgitate the stuff I posted in October with
gusto, he fails to use it wisely, nor with any logic at all.
And so here we are; At
the end of the second devastating mauling of a log by a feather. 5,000-odd
words so far and Erwin has done nothing but prove (or help me prove) Redbox and Blue Box are the intimately connected subsidiaries of Tai Sang (not Tain Sang, not Tin Sang!).
He hasn't dealt with any of the other charges I laid against him and has proven
to be stupid to the Nth degree, dishonest, blind to the facts and argumentative
without the saving grace of logical thought . . .
. . . he has mistaken
Japan for China, deliberately mislabelled a catalogue he nicked and generated a
whole port authority and multiple, toy-factory supporting, industrial complex
out of a shipping docket and because he can't do simple maths we have
resurrected a company he said was dead without leaving our chairs . . . this is
a staggering lesson in the post-truth world and I will be amused to read part
three.
One Response to Erwin Sell Verus Hugh
Walter Part Two Red Box
Darren Hatley says:
December 31, 2016 at 6:12 AM
Thanks for the information Erwin
Slurrrp! That tongue
not tired yet Darran?
No comments:
Post a Comment