Originally posted by Grampy BobbyWell I do believe it is actually your turn to respond to my last post. At any rate I don't care for a long argument with FreakyKBH on this issue; I disagree with a number of the points he made in the last post but it is *you* who, more often than not, smugly condescends his audience with nebulous "food for thought". Moreover, in this thread you have shamelessly ripped a wikipedia page and kept ambiguous the extent to which you grant them credit for their efforts.
Last twenty one posts to threads in the Spirituality Forum, General Forum zero.
Hmm...
A question you still haven't even attempted to resolve in your favour btw is your reason for cutting, rearranging, and concatenating different blocks of text if it were not an attempt to feign some of the work was your own.
Originally posted by Agerg"At any rate I don't care for a long argument with FreakyKBH on this issue..."
Well I do believe it is actually your turn to respond to my last post. At any rate I don't care for a long argument with FreakyKBH on this issue; I disagree with a number of the points he made in the last post but it is *you* who, more often than not, smugly condescends his audience with nebulous "food for thought". Moreover, in this thread you have sham ...[text shortened]... g different blocks of text if it were not an attempt to feign some of the work was your own.[/b]
Wonder why.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI'll take FreakyKBH on when I believe we have a mutual stake in the fight...I have nothing to gain by arguing with him here given his entry is solely to defend your "honour" and undermine my own - by pointing out a typo no less!
[b]"At any rate I don't care for a long argument with FreakyKBH on this issue..."
Wonder why.[/b]
Still no reconciliation of that question I see!
Originally posted by AgergAt any rate I don't care for a long argument with FreakyKBH...
Well I do believe it is actually your turn to respond to my last post. At any rate I don't care for a long argument with FreakyKBH on this issue; I disagree with a number of the points he made in the last post but it is *you* who, more often than not, smugly condescends his audience with nebulous "food for thought". Moreover, in this thread you have shamelessl ...[text shortened]... g different blocks of text if it were not an attempt to feign some of the work was your own.
Can't say I blame you, all unarmed and exposed as you find yourself.
Moreover, in this thread you have shamelessly ripped a wikipedia page and kept ambiguous the extent to which you grant them credit for their efforts.
So the quotation marks aren't enough for you, eh? Who ever uses them--- before their statements will be heard--- is called upon to adequately and accurately list the authorship of the content.
Now, that sounds a bit harsh, don't you think? Especially in light of the fact that wikipedia touts itself as...
"the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."
You just can't win, can you?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHArguing with Grampy's tag-team partner simply doesn't interest me here. When I've got a fiver to waste I'll be sure to drop into your "argument room".
[b]At any rate I don't care for a long argument with FreakyKBH...
Can't say I blame you, all unarmed and exposed as you find yourself.
Moreover, in this thread you have shamelessly ripped a wikipedia page and kept ambiguous the extent to which you grant them credit for their efforts.
So the quotation marks aren't enough for you, eh? Who ev lf as...
"the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."
You just can't win, can you?[/b]
The questions I've put to Grampy are fair and he shows his true integrity by baiting me back here and failing to answer them. Furthermore I've given a full account of my issues with his usage of quotation marks (where not closing them at paragraph ends implies they are closed within - suggesting original material (unless one is prepared to read his drivel like a hawk)).
10 Oct 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Agerg"""""""" This thread is now closed, due to lack of interest, and shall remain closed until further notice. -gb""""""""
Arguing with Grampy's tag-team partner simply doesn't interest me here. When I've got a fiver to waste I'll be sure to drop into your "argument room".
The questions I've put to Grampy are fair and he shows his true integrity by baiting me back here and failing to answer them. Furthermore I've given a full account of my issues with his usage of quotation mar ...[text shortened]... - suggesting original material (unless one is prepared to read his drivel like a hawk)).
.
Originally posted by Shallow BlueShallow Blue
Disingenuity still disbecomes you.
You may express your thanks not by posting it, but by acting upon it. Otherwise, I will not believe you.
Richard
Last moved 15 hours and 36 minutes ago
(1396)
About Shallow Blue
"My ego would prefer to deny it, but my conscience is forced to admit that my rating is probably accurate."
Quite interesting that you think and write in such mechanical cadence. Your two statements are mirror images of each other: 1) Each is coincidentally comprised of twenty (20) words. 2) Brief lead-in phrasing used in the construction of each sentence is nearly identical in both sound and purpose: "My ego would prefer to deny it..." along side "You may express your thanks..." 3) The hinge word 'but' is also prominently placed: "... but my conscience is forced to admit that my rating is probably accurate." as well as "... but by acting upon it. Otherwise, I will not believe you." 4) Conclusion reached in each sentence reflects a limited two-valued thought process and assumes no burden of proof. 5) In objective fairness, let's note one salient difference. In your profile you readily agree with yourself, while your gf post openly states your conditional disbelief in me. Wonder if you also always play e4 and d4 in chess.
gb