If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#131
|
|||
|
|||
Nora
Sandman wrote:
In article , sid wrote: snip trolling True to form, snip the bits you don't want to acknowledge and label the poster a troll. How is it that everyone that disagrees with you is a troll? I see you had nothing more to add but more antagonizing and game playing. The truth is a bit uncomfortable for you then? Have a nice day, Sid. Don't expect me to take anything you say seriously from now on. Oh, I'm sorry, I think you must have mistaken me for someone who gives a **** what you think. -- sid |
#132
|
|||
|
|||
Nora
On 8/31/2013 3:26 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sat, 31 Aug 2013 19:11:50 +0100, sid wrote: Sandman wrote: In article , sid wrote: I am sat here wondering what approach he's going to take to try and make himself right this time. Right about what, Sid? Ah, so just ignore it is the selected approach eh? Why can't you answer the question, Sid? Why weasel like this? It's a straight forward question, and since it follows an explicit claim of yours, it should be easy to just answer it? Why the games, Sid? What is it that I am supposed to be "right" about, in your view? To be right, I surely must have made a claim that I have yet to support, right? But you're responding to a sub thread where the discussion is about a claim that *Peter* has made that he has yet to support. Ironic, I should say. So, stop with the game playing and just answer the question. I'm not playing games or weaseling, unlike you! You know full well what was being refered to, you snipped it out before replying to me. Pretending to ignore the facts does not make them go away in the eyes of those all around you. I snipped away things Tony had written, yes. Is it your claim that Tony had written about something I need to be "right" about? Because I don't read what Tony writes since he is a troll and a proven liar. So if Tony had written what I am supposed to be right about, you need to write it again. Stop being a prick and own up. I've already quoted the proof that you're full of ****, Eric has posted the same, Tony has posted the same, Savageduck and pensive hamster have both quoted the same as I. Why do you continue to weasel? You failed to answer the question yet again, Sid. What exactly is it that I am supposed to be "right" about, Sid? I'm asking you, not Tony. Your claim, I don't think you'll find that I have claimed anything other than you're full of ****. you answer. Done that. You snipped it. Stop with your games and just answer the question. You're the only one playing games and trying to twist out of owning up The truth will get you killfiled. He who denies the truth can never be wrong -- PeterN |
#133
|
|||
|
|||
Nora
On 2013-08-31 15:38:12 -0700, PeterN said:
On 8/31/2013 3:26 PM, Tony Cooper wrote: On Sat, 31 Aug 2013 19:11:50 +0100, sid wrote: Sandman wrote: In article , sid wrote: I am sat here wondering what approach he's going to take to try and make himself right this time. Right about what, Sid? Ah, so just ignore it is the selected approach eh? Why can't you answer the question, Sid? Why weasel like this? It's a straight forward question, and since it follows an explicit claim of yours, it should be easy to just answer it? Why the games, Sid? What is it that I am supposed to be "right" about, in your view? To be right, I surely must have made a claim that I have yet to support, right? But you're responding to a sub thread where the discussion is about a claim that *Peter* has made that he has yet to support. Ironic, I should say. So, stop with the game playing and just answer the question. I'm not playing games or weaseling, unlike you! You know full well what was being refered to, you snipped it out before replying to me. Pretending to ignore the facts does not make them go away in the eyes of those all around you. I snipped away things Tony had written, yes. Is it your claim that Tony had written about something I need to be "right" about? Because I don't read what Tony writes since he is a troll and a proven liar. So if Tony had written what I am supposed to be right about, you need to write it again. Stop being a prick and own up. I've already quoted the proof that you're full of ****, Eric has posted the same, Tony has posted the same, Savageduck and pensive hamster have both quoted the same as I. Why do you continue to weasel? You failed to answer the question yet again, Sid. What exactly is it that I am supposed to be "right" about, Sid? I'm asking you, not Tony. Your claim, I don't think you'll find that I have claimed anything other than you're full of ****. you answer. Done that. You snipped it. Stop with your games and just answer the question. You're the only one playing games and trying to twist out of owning up The truth will get you killfiled. He who denies the truth can never be wrong I believe the tactic in use here is "Tu quoque". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque -- Regards, Savageduck |
#134
|
|||
|
|||
Nora
In article ,
sid wrote: snip trolling True to form, snip the bits you don't want to acknowledge and label the poster a troll. How is it that everyone that disagrees with you is a troll? What did you supposedly disagree with, Sid? I asked you a question, for four posts now you have refused to answer that question. Why would I need to keep responding to your ad hominem's and evasions over and over again? I see you had nothing more to add but more antagonizing and game playing. The truth is a bit uncomfortable for you then? What supposed "truth", Sid? I would think that refusal to answer one simple question is a good sign of being uncomfortable. -- Sandman[.net] |
#135
|
|||
|
|||
Nora
Sandman wrote:
In article , sid wrote: snip trolling True to form, snip the bits you don't want to acknowledge and label the poster a troll. How is it that everyone that disagrees with you is a troll? What did you supposedly disagree with, Sid? At this point, pretty much everything about you. I asked you a question, for four posts now you have refused to answer that question. Mindless repetition is about all you're good at isn't it? Why would I need to keep responding to your ad hominem's I don't think there were any ad hominems, I would have said it was plain old name calling. and evasions over and over again? It's hard to convince you of anything if you pretend not to have read the post you are replying to all the time. I see you had nothing more to add but more antagonizing and game playing. The truth is a bit uncomfortable for you then? What supposed "truth", Sid? I would think that refusal to answer one simple question is a good sign of being uncomfortable. This never was about me though was it? You seem to be trying to make a discussion about you calling Peter a liar and being proven wrong into something about a claim that I am suppossed to have made. That's bizzare. -- sid |
#136
|
|||
|
|||
Nora
In article ,
sid wrote: snip trolling True to form, snip the bits you don't want to acknowledge and label the poster a troll. How is it that everyone that disagrees with you is a troll? What did you supposedly disagree with, Sid? At this point, pretty much everything about you. So you can't give a direct answer to that question either, can you? You made the connection that me labeling someone a troll is somehow connected to that person disagreeing with me. Disagreement is usually when person A has an opinion and person B does not share that opinion. What opinion of mine did you express disagreement with, Sid? It seems to me that you're just throwing out as much ad hominem's as possible right now, while I am the one asking perfectly reasonable question pertaining to the claims you've made. snip trolling The truth is a bit uncomfortable for you then? What supposed "truth", Sid? I would think that refusal to answer one simple question is a good sign of being uncomfortable. This never was about me though was it? It was about your claim about me: sid I am sat here wondering what approach he's going to take to try and make himself right this time. And I asked you - right about what? As it is, you can't answer that question, which is quite telling. You seem to be trying to make a discussion about you calling Peter a liar and being proven wrong Huh? I called Peter a liar when he failed to support the claim he had made while at the same time refusing to admit to it being made in error. I agree that "liar" is a bit rich, but "complete idiot" isn't much better. I gave him the benefit of a doubt and made him seem a bit more intelligent than the alternative. I.e. I can only accept a person to make the same mistake so many times before I have to conclude that it is intentional. And when was this supposedly "proven wrong", Sid? Are you again making claims you can't support, or won't support? You *really* should step out of this thread, you're way out of your league. -- Sandman[.net] |
#137
|
|||
|
|||
Nora
On Mon, 02 Sep 2013 07:29:27 +0200, Sandman wrote:
In article , sid wrote: snip trolling True to form, snip the bits you don't want to acknowledge and label the poster a troll. How is it that everyone that disagrees with you is a troll? What did you supposedly disagree with, Sid? At this point, pretty much everything about you. So you can't give a direct answer to that question either, can you? You made the connection that me labeling someone a troll is somehow connected to that person disagreeing with me. Disagreement is usually when person A has an opinion and person B does not share that opinion. What opinion of mine did you express disagreement with, Sid? It seems to me that you're just throwing out as much ad hominem's as possible right now, while I am the one asking perfectly reasonable question pertaining to the claims you've made. snip trolling The truth is a bit uncomfortable for you then? What supposed "truth", Sid? I would think that refusal to answer one simple question is a good sign of being uncomfortable. This never was about me though was it? It was about your claim about me: sid I am sat here wondering what approach he's going to take to try and make himself right this time. And I asked you - right about what? As it is, you can't answer that question, which is quite telling. You seem to be trying to make a discussion about you calling Peter a liar and being proven wrong Huh? I called Peter a liar when he failed to support the claim he had made while at the same time refusing to admit to it being made in error. I agree that "liar" is a bit rich, but "complete idiot" isn't much better. I gave him the benefit of a doubt and made him seem a bit more intelligent than the alternative. I.e. I can only accept a person to make the same mistake so many times before I have to conclude that it is intentional. And when was this supposedly "proven wrong", Sid? Are you again making claims you can't support, or won't support? You *really* should step out of this thread, you're way out of your league. At heart, Sandman is a really unpleasant piece of moose droppings. I would hate to do business with him, even with a lawyer. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#138
|
|||
|
|||
Nora
On 9/2/2013 1:29 AM, Sandman wrote:
In article , sid wrote: snip trolling True to form, snip the bits you don't want to acknowledge and label the poster a troll. How is it that everyone that disagrees with you is a troll? What did you supposedly disagree with, Sid? At this point, pretty much everything about you. So you can't give a direct answer to that question either, can you? You made the connection that me labeling someone a troll is somehow connected to that person disagreeing with me. Disagreement is usually when person A has an opinion and person B does not share that opinion. What opinion of mine did you express disagreement with, Sid? It seems to me that you're just throwing out as much ad hominem's as possible right now, while I am the one asking perfectly reasonable question pertaining to the claims you've made. snip trolling The truth is a bit uncomfortable for you then? What supposed "truth", Sid? I would think that refusal to answer one simple question is a good sign of being uncomfortable. This never was about me though was it? It was about your claim about me: sid I am sat here wondering what approach he's going to take to try and make himself right this time. And I asked you - right about what? As it is, you can't answer that question, which is quite telling. You seem to be trying to make a discussion about you calling Peter a liar and being proven wrong Huh? I called Peter a liar when he failed to support the claim he had made while at the same time refusing to admit to it being made in error. I agree that "liar" is a bit rich, but "complete idiot" isn't much better. I gave him the benefit of a doubt and made him seem a bit more intelligent than the alternative. I.e. I can only accept a person to make the same mistake so many times before I have to conclude that it is intentional. And when was this supposedly "proven wrong", Sid? Are you again making claims you can't support, or won't support? You *really* should step out of this thread, you're way out of your league. So you close your eyes, and then complain you cannot see. Pathetic. -- PeterN |
#139
|
|||
|
|||
Nora
On 9/2/2013 5:25 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
snip At heart, Sandman is a really unpleasant piece of moose droppings. I would hate to do business with him, even with a lawyer. Before getting involved in a business deal, I would take someone out for a round of golf. During 18 holes of golf, they revealed a lot about their personality and ethics. I then had some idea about what I was getting into. I read Sandman as being pathetically insecure. That is just my read based upon my life experience of dealing with people. Just one example: The secure people I know, and associate with would not find it necessary to tell a group of people they don't know, what new toys they have just purchased. Yes one might seek opinions prior to purchase, and evaluate them. But, not argue with the opinion giver. -- PeterN |
#140
|
|||
|
|||
Nora
In article ,
PeterN wrote: So you close your eyes, and then complain you cannot see. Pathetic. Peter, if you're not going to stand up for your claims, please dont post in this thread. You've made a big enough fool of yourself already. Peter's original claim: PeterN It is not unfair when the Swedish person starts criticizing usage of American English, especially the spelling of artificial words Me questioning that I ever criticized his spelling: Sandman when did I *criticize* the *spelling* of "artificial words"? Peter changing his claim: PeterN furgedaboudit. I am too lazy to find the ink [sic], where you "corrected" my spelling. Still no apology for making a false claim about my actions. -- Sandman[.net] |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|