Prev: credit laons
Next: Road Casualties 2009
From: Ed Chilada on 23 Jul 2010 06:08 On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 10:28:36 +0100, Chelsea Tractor Man <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 16:36:52 +0100, Ed Chilada wrote: > >> And there's something perversely hilarious about spelling semantics >> wrong.. Of course, you did it on purpose.... right? > >your argument technique comprises Blimey, there's no "argument technique" going on here, I'm just saying it as I see it. Are you using some sort of "technique"?! To what end? > of focusing on irrelevant detail If you call someone a chav whilst clearly not understanding the term and therefore applying it inappropriately then that's not really irrelevant is it. > It isn't interesting, especially when it descending to spelling. You've made spelling and grammatical mistakes by the bucketload (including in your above sentence), but of course I've ignored most of these. However, spelling semantics wrong is pretty funny. > Why are you so angry? LOL! Yes, of course. I'm *furious* here... <rolls eyes>
From: Ed Chilada on 23 Jul 2010 06:57 On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 11:31:35 +0100, Chelsea Tractor Man <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 11:08:42 +0100, Ed Chilada wrote: > >>>your argument technique comprises >> >> Blimey, there's no "argument technique" going on here, I'm just saying >> it as I see it. Are you using some sort of "technique"?! To what end? > >answering every few words with an answer is exactly what I would expect. Of someone taking the time to reply to what you've written instead of bottling it and snipping all the tricky questions away you mean? If not, then what else are you expecting? I'd say it was more of a "technique", to claim some fatuous drivel and then when asked to explain/quote/prove it, you snip away the request - multiple times - as you have been doing. However, I think calling that a "technique", is rather overstating the amount of thought that probably goes into it. >I laugh at knobs with stickers. >You think its because i'm jealous. It is - even if you can't bring yourself to understand or admit it. Much of your conduct and the words you've used to describe him (despite knowing nothing about him other than the "flash" Range Rover he drives containing a sticker about the Porsche he owns), betray your feelings. > That's the "argument" That's the truth.
From: Ed Chilada on 23 Jul 2010 07:08 On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 11:34:25 +0100, Chelsea Tractor Man <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 11:07:08 +0100, Ed Chilada wrote: > >>>you seem to think you can judge what people are like from their cars >> >> Not at all, where did I say anything like that? Please quote. > >you take the position that somebody with a nice car is automatically >"cooler" than somebody who laughs at their crassness (while knowing neither >person) I haven't judged him at all since I don't know him and all I know of him are some scant details of his cars. However, I *have* judged you on the basis that upon seeing this bloke, you reacted by running off to the internet to start this sad and pathetic thread in order to call your childish names of someone you've never met, effectively behind their back. Quite frankly that makes you a whole heap less cool than most people, really it does. Remember how you told me Johnny Depp was cool and Miles Davis too? Can you imagine either of them starting a usenet thread like the one you did? Here's the remainder of the questions you avoided this time around: >I'm not jealous of people with nice cars. Why describe the Range Rover as "flash"? Why start a thread about his Porsche sticker calling him all sorts of childish names? > throwing abuse about Really? Where so? > and claiming <splutter> he must be OK because he >drives nice cars Where did I say this? Please quote.
From: Ed Chilada on 23 Jul 2010 07:17 On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 12:02:57 +0100, Chelsea Tractor Man <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 11:57:08 +0100, Ed Chilada wrote: > >>>answering every few words with an answer is exactly what I would expect. >> >> Of someone taking the time to reply to what you've written instead of >> bottling it and snipping all the tricky questions away you mean? > >there are no "tricky questions". Oh of course there are - the ones where I've asked you to back up your claims, whilst knowing fully that you won't be able to because they're false therefore requiring you to either admit that or simply to keep snipping away the questions. Of course, because you're a classy, honest and straight-up cool bloke, you opted to admit that... oh hang on no, you just kept avoiding them... > Unless you mean not telling us about your cool stickers. Huh? >> It is - even if you can't bring yourself to understand or admit it. >> Much of your conduct and the words you've used to describe him >> (despite knowing nothing about him other than the "flash" Range Rover >> he drives containing a sticker about the Porsche he owns), betray your >> feelings. > >only to your mind. To the rest of us Implied support for viewpoint.. classy. > its just a laughable stereotypical Essex knob in a Range Rover You know nothing of this guy and yet you now admit you've painted him with what is a "stereotypical", personality, in a "flash" Range Rover, so that you can call him childish names and comfort yourself that although you're jealous of his cars, you wouldn't actually want to be him because you've decided he's a "knob". >>> That's the "argument" >> >> That's the truth. > >progress! Whatever you think I meant by that, I rather suspect you got the wrong end of the stick...
From: Adrian on 23 Jul 2010 07:21
Ed Chilada <nospam(a)nospam.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> its just a laughable stereotypical Essex knob in a Range Rover > You know nothing of this guy That's not quite true. We know... He is in suburban Essex. He is driving a Range-Rover. He is likely to also own a Porsche - and wants you to know that. If he doesn't also own a Porsche, he wants you to think he does. Taken together, I'm seeing plenty of grounds for a very high likelihood of knobbishness, and little to contradict. |