From: Mr. Benn on

"Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)> wrote in message
> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:16:58 +0100, Ed Chilada wrote:
>> Sheesh come on now, it's one thing to be digging, but really - don't
>> start lying like this. Want to prove me wrong? Just quote where you've
>> already explained how you know that "nobody else does". Cut and paste
>> it instead of claiming you've done. Should be easy if you're not
>> lying.
> this is the last exchange (which *you* failed to answer)
>>> How do you know this, have you asked everyone? Or are you just
>>> assuming false support for your argument?
>>Where are the posts?
> we are still waiting for the posts supporting your view (because there
> aren't any)
> I think you have now reached a level of abuse where its not worth
> continuing.

You have the patience of a saint Mike. I would have given up days ago.

From: Ed Chilada on
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:12:34 +0100, Chelsea Tractor Man
<mr.c.tractor(a)> wrote:

>On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 11:14:13 +0100, Ed Chilada wrote:
>> And you *really* think you're not digging here?
> We have established that you think he was only displaying "pride of
>ownership", nobody agrees with you.

Ah.. the flip side to implied support. Why have you so little
confidence in your own POV that you try to make this about how many
people agree with you or not?

In any case, I'm talking about the jealousy that leads someone to see
that, and then go to usenet and start *this* thread about it, calling
them various names. And to that end - there's *only* you.

>You think that an irritating constant repeating of trivial non points in an
>aggressive way makes it seem you have the upper hand. It does not.

You seem to think that snipping the tricky questions away means you
get away with it. But look, they keep reappearing, just to embarrass
you into having to avoid them again..

>>> everybody but you thinks so.
>> Ahh.. implied support for argument, that old chestnut. You really
>> think "everyone"? Is that everyone in the world? Really? Did you ask
>> them all?
>I just answered that elsewhere, I have done several times.

At the time I asked, you hadn't made any stab at answering it and
you've still not actually acknowledged that you clearly have no idea
what support you have for your argument - even though you ache to make
out that everyone agrees with you.

If you really had confidence in your own POV you would argue its own
strengths rather than resort to making out that lots of people agree
with you.

> That goes for the rest of the garbage.

You haven't answered any of it. If you think you have, just cut and
paste your answers in - should be easy if those answers actually
exist and you're not just lying. Here they are again:

>>> throwing abuse about
>> Really? Where so?
>re read your posts

Please quote. I don't think I'm being abusive so there's no point me
wasting my time looking for something that isn't there. If you think
there is something, quote it.

So far you've suggested that my comment to "grow some balls", was
abusive. However, your "throwing abuse about" claim not only suggests
multiple instances, but it also predates that "grow some balls"
comment - so you can't have been referring to that - must be something
else so please quote it.

>>> and claiming <splutter> he must be OK because he
>>>drives nice cars
>> Where did I say this? Please quote.
>I answered that a few minutes ago

Really? Where? I don't recall you quoting where I've apparently been
"claiming he must be OK because he drives nice cars". Try again.

From: Ed Chilada on
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:42:00 +0100, Chelsea Tractor Man
<mr.c.tractor(a)> wrote:

>On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 09:39:14 +0100, Chelsea Tractor Man wrote:
>> We have all see the sign "my other car is a Porsche", usually in a "banger"
>> or modest car.
>> But in commutable Essex yesterday (where else) on a new Range Rover Vogue.
>> OK, I won't * it out, I reckon he was probably a banker?
>Ping Ed.
>Reread the original post above, then read the posts from everybody else,
>(who all more or less agree with me that the guy is vulgar, attention
>seeking or whatever).

Having re-read this thread as you suggested, I don't think I found
*any* post where anyone actually agreed with you, or offered any
opinion on the RR driver beyond perhaps Adrian in the latter stages of
our t�te � t�te. That falls quite far short of "everybody else".

You've spent a lot of time in this thread pretending that you have
loads of support for your opinion and seemingly using that to justify
it, yet it turns out that it simply isn't true. You might well have
assumed it and you may well be right in doing so (though I really
don't think most people in this group would be so nasty about it and
agree verbatim with the terms you've used), but it's certainly not
been stated.

If you wish to disagree and still think that "everybody else <snip>
more or less agree with [you]", WRT your opinion of the RR driver then
please provide some message-ids or quote of what people said.

Blimey, I suppose I should have realised that you might not even be
being honest at that. It seems I have to check *everything* you claim.
And you say you're not digging <rolls eyes>.
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Prev: credit laons
Next: Road Casualties 2009