Give him a medal
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Speeding - a few questions
Next: Smartcom 12s relay?
From: Ivor Jones on 20 Aug 2006 18:46 "Alex Heney" <me8(a)privacy.net> wrote in message news:90ohe2p2em708dre2hu1mn9lv435rigm5l(a)4ax.com > On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 08:07:12 +0100, "Ivor Jones" > <ivor(a)despammed.invalid> wrote: > > > "Ian Dalziel" <iandalziel(a)lineone.net> wrote in message > > news:ro9fe2lft5h14ol1jqc4ddhf06c1o5ie4r(a)4ax.com > > > > [snip] > > > > > Could it be that you are "defined" even better by the > > > phrase "illiterate fuckwit"? > > > > Ah, the foul language argument again. > > > > Do you still not get it..? As soon as you start > > swearing to make your point, you immediately become > > completely and totally wrong, even if you weren't to > > start with. > > > > That statement is totally, utterly wrong. > > The language used does not alter the validity of the > point AT ALL. It does, purely and simply because it shows the user of the swear word to be intellectually incapable of making a point without such usage. That in itself is enough to convince me that they are wrong. If they were right, they would be able to argue their point without swearing. > Incidentally, most people would not consider the word > "fuckwit" to be swearing, even though the first four > letters by themselves would be a swear word.
From: Ivor Jones on 20 Aug 2006 18:48 "Alex Heney" <me8(a)privacy.net> wrote in message news:4bohe2tcd4tpog88kg12jb4cmttchj68nh(a)4ax.com [snip] > The fact that *you* don't understand *why* (you think) it > is incorrect is presumably also irrelevant. > > Actually, you seem to think that anything which might > explain why you think that way is irrelevant. Perhaps because it is..? Ivor
From: Ivor Jones on 20 Aug 2006 18:55 "Alex Heney" <me8(a)privacy.net> wrote in message news:f9phe29t0jakjkfr8ipuls1tg86stjndtd(a)4ax.com > On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 16:52:21 +0100, "Ivor Jones" > <ivor(a)despammed.invalid> wrote: [snip] > > I do not relate to the > > continent known as Europe, therefore I cannot be a > > European. > > > > Of course you "relate" to it. I most certainly do not. Ivor > > You were born in that continent (unless you consider the > continent of Europe to only be the main land mass, and > not to include the outlying islands such as Great > Britain). > > And you live in that continent. I most certainly do not. I live in a country that is in it, but that is a different thing. So terribly sorry that you don't like it. Ivor
From: Ivor Jones on 20 Aug 2006 18:49 "Alex Heney" <me8(a)privacy.net> wrote in message news:o4ohe2tekl89eevg8kj7lk6vmttfv01tep(a)4ax.com [snip] > NOBODY has claimed that at any time. > > Which is hardly surprising. there is no "nation" of > Europe, so there cannot be a nationality of European. Correct. > But there is a geographical place called Europe. So you > can be a native of Europe. No. I am a native of my country, not the continent that country is a part of. > And a native of Europe is a european, whether they like > it or not. No. See above. Ivor
From: Ivor Jones on 20 Aug 2006 18:51
"Alex Heney" <me8(a)privacy.net> wrote in message news:t1nhe2t3bv8jsu5d4fi2ak776v97rq9a0d(a)4ax.com [snip] > You have never explained it except by stating falsehoods > (such as stating that you can only be a "native" of a > "country"). You say it is a falsehood. I say it isn't. I am still not a European and you will never make me one. Ivor |