Re: SCW's legacy

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 10:28:38 +0100, Charles <charles@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 08:58:39 +0100, DaveyWavey <davey.wavey@xxxxxxxx>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 20:46:53 +0100, Charles <charles@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 19:18:35 +0100, DaveyWavey <davey.wavey@xxxxxxxx>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 14:22:15 +0100, Charles <charles@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>On 15 Jul 2005 07:44:37 -0700, "Uncle Dave" <davidcovey@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Rookie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know I'm going out on a limb here but is it possible that the England
>>>>>>>>>>>>> win was down to a _COMBINATION_ of good coaching, good leadership, good
>>>>>>>>>>>>> players and good luck all clicking to produce a great _TEAM_?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>I've tried that tack and it just won't wash I'm afraid. England's
>>>>>>>>>>>>success was down to sheer luck which - luckily enough - lasted for
>>>>>>>>>>>>about three years and culminated in a very jammy win in the final of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>very poorly contested competition which really doesn't count for much.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>What an extraordinary thing to say!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>In which way was England's progression different to other world
>>>>>>>>>>>dominant teams RWC winning 'achievements?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>WHOOOOOOOOOOOSH!!!!!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Aaaah. That felt good.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I hope that doesn't indicate that you have done something foul over
>>>>>>>>>your keyboard and monitor!!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Uuuuuuggggghhhh and Eeeeeeewwwww!!!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Have a great weekend half-wit - I am!! ;o)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Half-wit"? How very rude of you - especially for one who seems to
>>>>>>>>pride himself in being the very epitome of an English gentleman.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It was the inherent English gentlemen that persuaded me to credit you
>>>>>>>with half a wit! ;o)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Have an *unqualified* great weekend old chap, if you are too squeamish
>>>>>>>to accept tit for tat retaliation of your smug repartee!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I've never considered a "whoosh" to be "smug repartee", but I guess
>>>>>>there's a first time for everything.
>>>>>
>>>>>If your smugness was limited to "whoosh" I doubt there would be any
>>>>>necessity to mention your obvious failings.
>>>>>
>>>>>However, it is apparent that while you are invariably hyper-critical
>>>>>of the behaviour of others, your own conduct falls far short of being
>>>>>perfect!
>>>>>
>>>>>HAGW! ;o)
>>>>
>>>>Out of interest, what does HAWG stand for?
>>>
>>>Have A Great Weekend, which is normally abbreviated if I have given
>>>you the full version in a previous post!!
>>>
>>
>>Ah. Of course.
>>
>>>>
>>>>And now onto your "invariably hyper-critical of the behaviour of
>>>>others" comment. I disagree here.
>>>>
>>>>Firstly, I am *sometimes* "slightly critical" of the behaviour of
>>>>others. And *occasionally* "hyper-critical". But to say that I am
>>>>"invariably hyper-critical of the behaviour of others" would imply
>>>>that I am *constantly* criticising others in an *extreme* manner.
>>>
>>>So I exaggerated the point in order to make the point!!
>>>
>>>However, I am more than happy to accept your own admission of: "I am
>>>*sometimes* "slightly critical" of the behaviour of others. And
>>>*occasionally* "hyper-critical".
>>>
>>>Thus it appears self evident that while you are *occasionally*
>>>"hyper-critical" of others, my own observation that: " your own
>>>conduct falls far short of being perfect", would be a quite reasonable
>>>one!
>>>
>>I never claimed to be perfect.
>
>How very modest!
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>You will not be able to back this up with references, as it is
>>>>patently false. FWIW, I do not consider my own posting here to be
>>>>"hyper-critical".
>>>
>>>You are hoist by your own petard given your admission above where you
>>>state unequivocally: "I am *occasionally* "hyper-critical"!!
>>>
>>
>>But not *invariably* "hyper-critical"? Which was your (incorrect)
>>statement.
>
>Which was qualified by my later response:
>
>"So I exaggerated the point in order to make the point!!".
>
>But you did say:
>
>"I do not consider my own posting here to be "hyper-critical", which
>was at variance with your admission that: "I am *occasionally*
>"hyper-critical"!!
>
>Do try and keep up Davey!
>

Keep up with what? The fact that you make incorrect exaggerations?
We're both in agreement here.

>>
>>>>
>>>>However, you knew this already. Your posting of this gross
>>>>exaggeration is merely a poor attempt to divert attention from your
>>>>own silliness in this thread.
>>>
>>>That would be at variance in what way with the MO of most others here
>>>(and the whole of Usenet), seeking "invariably" to prove the other
>>>chap wrong? "Silliness" by your definition would appear to be quite
>>>common!! ;o)
>>>
>>>>
>>>>You used a similar tactic in the silly discussion about whether
>>>>"immigration" was to blame for the bombings of last week.
>>>
>>>It's not just me Wavey Davey:
>>>
>>>The findings of YouGov's survey 9/7/05
>>>
>>>Excerpt:
>>>
>>>"Fully 82 per cent are apparently convinced already that Islamic
>>>extremists - whether foreign Muslims, British Muslims or some
>>>combination of the two - were behind the bombings and 60 per cent
>>>believe Britain's security services "should now focus their
>>>intelligence-gathering and terrorism-prevention efforts on Muslims in
>>>this country or seeking to enter it"."
>>>
>>
>>Not really a damning indictment of immigration, is it?
>
>It depends whether you want to accept the reality of the situation, as
>the vast majority of the UK population do, or to wander around with
>your head stuck firmly up your ample posterior!
>

The "reality of the situation" is that immigration was demonstrably
not the cause of this atrocity.

>>
>>>>You massively over-reacted to a posting saying no more than the fact that
>>>>such comments were unhelpful,
>>>
>>>You actually said to me:
>>>
>>>"But making general noise about "immigration and asylum" as a response
>>>to something as terrible as this is pretty stupid."
>>>
>>
>>Indeed. And I prefixed this sentence with: "Not a particularly helpful
>>comment.", referring to your comments about immigration.
>
>That was not the sentence to which I responded, and against which I
>purportedly "over-reacted"!!
>
>>
>>>>then sought to obscure your own
>>>>silliness by posting wild tangential exaggerations about what others
>>>>in the thread had actually said.
>>>
>>>You mean like that which the other goon "Uncle Bully" had to say?
>>>
>>
>>The particular exaggerations I had in mind was the ones which sought
>>to attack those who were reasonably refusing to place the blame for
>>the atrocities on immigration.
>
>(you may have meant "were the ones"!)
>
>Perhaps you would be kind enough to cite examples of such "wild
>tangential exaggerations", in order that I may apologise to those whom
>I "attacked" so unreasonably!!
>

Life is too short. Read the thread. But don't bother apologising,
those you attacked aren't that bothered.

>>
>>>>
>>>>Frankly, it's no skin of my nose, Charles.
>>>
>>>Your response would appear to indicate otherwise.
>>>
>>
>>Nope.
>
>Yep! (what horribly American vernacular!)
>
>>
>>>>But you shouldn't for a moment think that you are fooling anyone.
>>>
>>>I shouldn't think "anyone" else is remotely interested about what you
>>>and I are exchanging, in yet another Usenet pissing contest!!
>>>
>>
>>True enough.
>
>At least we agree on something!! ;o)
>
>>
>>>You certainly aren't fooling me, which is a great deal more
>>>pertinent!!
>>>
>>
>>Not really trying to fool you. So I can live with that.
>
>It certainly won't have me committing Hari Kiri.
>
>>
>>>HAGW!! ;o)
>>
>>Enjoy your Monday ;-(
>
>Not until I have been to the gym!!
>
>Ugh! It's Monday!! ;o(

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: SCWs legacy
    ... >>Which was qualified by my later response: ... >The "reality of the situation" is that immigration was demonstrably ... >>>The particular exaggerations I had in mind was the ones which sought ... But don't bother apologising, ...
    (rec.sport.rugby.union)
  • Re: The difference between them and us..
    ... >> Hey, I was there and in a message that I just sent in response to Ben ... >> discussed the same hole. ... Some of those exaggerations are BS, ...
    (rec.sport.golf)