Re: England In Massive Choke

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 23:11:27 -0700, Peter Ashford
<peter.m.ashford@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Oct 26, 9:42 am, Charles <j...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 13:10:17 -0700, Peter Ashford



<peter.m.ashf...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

However, if you can find fabrication in any of my input, then please
provide evidence and I will of course apologise."

I'm asking for proof, if and only if you're making claims of the kind
I mentioned.

Are you really asking for proof that "trolling" in all its forms, is a
predilection of so-called NZ 'fanboys'?

That would be very amusing if it wasn't apparent that you are probably
being serious.

No.

No!

I heard you the first time! ;o)



Were you following the thread AT ALL?

Assiduously.



I said: " I, for one, would like to know who these NZ posters are who
seem to endlessly
proclaim that the ABs need to "merely show up" to win any given RWC"

You will need to go back and find out for yourself, as it not
something I have ever said. I don't believe such a suggestion has been
made in this thread.



I DID NOT say that NZ fanboys have not been trolling - that is a self
evident truth.

Agreed, and that is what I asserted.



I said that I want to see who made the mythical claim the 'ABs need to
"merely show up" to win any given RWC'

See my comments above.



People who live in straw houses shouldn't play with matches! ;o)

" People who live in straw houses shouldn't play with matches?" In
other words, I'm being hypocrytical?

I'm suggesting that all NZ 'fanboys' are hypocritical. I wouldn't
describe you as the archetypal NZ fanboy, but if the cap fits then
wear it old chap.

You made the post to ME. You didn't say that it was directed at other
people, so why would I assume that that was the case? Generally, when
people respond directly to me, I assume they're responding directly to
me.

I did address it plurally and not personally, as in "NZ fanboys"! ;o)



Fine, show me where I've accused anyone else of making the kind of
claims I was talking about.

Now let's get this straight Peter: you want me to show you where you
have accused anyone else of making the kind of claims you were talking
about.

This is where it gets back to you not following the thread. I'm
talking about making the "ABs merely need to turn up to win [any] RWC"
claims. AS WAS THE POINT OF THE THREAD.

That's not the case at all; the thread was started by Dave Keegan and
it was originally a spoof about England being chokers for having lost
in the final.

It has wandered a tad, as all threads invariably do. However, I don't
believe it ever debated anything about NZ just having to turn up to
win the RWC.

Perhaps you would be kind enough to draw to our attention where this
scurrilous accusation was made, and the name of the scoundrel who
suggested it!!

Other than that you may have address your mounting paranoia. But
remember, if they really don't like you - it's not necessarily
paranoia!! ;o)


*sigh*

Poor old Peter, he is so frustrated and confused.


In other words, you *didn't* read the thread.

I did Peter, honest! ;o)

I guess that explains your posts.

I think you are desperately running around in ever decreasing circles
and will shortly be disappearing up your own chuff.


The thread is not just the sodding original post, the thread consists
of the posts to the point where you were replying. On the 24th I
wrote:

"...which is another one of the main mechanisms for crap production on
the NG : the endless creation of strawmen to knock over. I, for one,
would like to know who these NZ posters are who seem

That's the key word Peter, "seem"; it is your perception that is
skewed perhaps.

to endlessly
proclaim that the ABs need to "merely show up" to win any given RWC.
Supposedly, this is a universally held point of view, but when you ask
to be shown who has actually said it, you're greeted with silence. "

If there have been "endless proclamations" it should be simple for you
to find an example, then we can deal with the buggers.

Are you also hearing 'voices'?


You responded that "You say that is though it were not a predilection
of many NZ fanboiz"

To which I have said (repeatedly now): point out anyone who said that
"the ABs need to "merely show up" to win any given RWC"

To which I replied (on a number of occasions):

"Perhaps you would be kind enough to draw to our attention where this
scurrilous accusation was made, and the name of the scoundrel who
suggested it!!"


Is that simple enough for you?

Clear as a bell old chap, but perhaps you could clarify what it is
that you actually want and I will do my utmost to accommodate you. In
the meantime, try and get some rest old chap, you are somewhat
overwrought. PTSD is not very pleasant... ;o)

Have a great weekend Peter - you know I intend to! ;o)

TFIF!
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: England In Massive Choke
    ... provide evidence and I will of course apologise." ... proclaim that the ABs need to "merely show up" to win any given RWC" ... of the posts to the point where you were replying. ... You responded that "You say that is though it were not a predilection ...
    (rec.sport.rugby.union)
  • Re: Celebrate Evolution! today
    ... See references above. ... Christians were at loggerheads, struggling for power. ... on the battle which has drawn praise is "St. Paul vs. St. Peter" by ... of Internal evidence, external evidence, and extant documentation ...
    (misc.news.internet.discuss)
  • Re: Mr Dawkins new book?
    ... is this the same Peter Ashby who in no uncertain terms told Nick ... explanations is not evidence that I am not engaging Richard. ... you that you are the one with the problem in understanding here. ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: what is etymology? (linguistics and biology)
    ... produce some evidence of such a late dating of Mark. ... "The date of the Gospel is uncertain. ... seems to place the composition of the Gospel after the death of Peter ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Like Darwin Harshman points to the similarities on either side of
    ... an Evolutionist, Peter? ... evolution. ... is not seen in the paleontological crust of the Earth. ... Special Creation is seen directly in this line of evidence. ...
    (talk.origins)