Re: hmmm


"Mick" <Mick@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1129233643.34ac9ec7328d24f7caef2f34bca06aa5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Fat Mantra" <hurk@xxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:dild7n$7hq$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> "Mick" <Mick@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:1128886166.2379918c67adeefd1b531ffc811ec9eb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>> "Fat Mantra" <hurk@xxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> news:di6slb$puk$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>
>>>> "Mick" <Mick@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>> news:1128714583.a208c167b1d5a0293f47b377036b2974@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>
>>>>> "Fat Mantra" <hurk@xxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>> news:di6idm$t0g$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> Abraham Lincoln was elected to Congress in 1846.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John F. Kennedy was elected to Congress in 1946.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John F. Kennedy was elected President in 1960.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Both were particularly concerned with civil rights.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Both wives lost their children while living in the White House.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Both Presidents were shot on a Friday.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Both Presidents were shot in the head.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now it gets really weird.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lincoln's secretary was named Kennedy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kennedy's Secretary was named Lincoln.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Both were assassinated by Southerners.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Both were succeeded by Southerners named Johnson.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln, was born in 1808.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lyndon Johnson, who succeeded Kennedy, was born in 1908.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John Wilkes Booth, who assassinated Lincoln, was born in 1839.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lee Harvey Oswald, who assassinated Kennedy, was born in 1939.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Both assassins were known by their three names.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Both names are composed of fifteen letters.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now hang on to your seat.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lincoln was shot at the theatre named 'Ford.'
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kennedy was shot in a car called ' Lincoln' made by 'Ford.'
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lincoln was shot in a theatre and his assassin ran and hid in a
>>>>>> warehouse.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kennedy was shot from a warehouse and his assassin ran and hid in a
>>>>>> theatre.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Booth and Oswald were assassinated before their trials.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And here's the kicker...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A week before Lincoln was shot; he was in Monroe, Maryland
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A week before Kennedy was shot, he was with Marilyn Monroe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And here's another kicker, this post is exactly the same as this
>>>>> site.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/289y5
>>>>>
>>>>> Weird coincidence eh?. lol
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Wasn't it Lincoln who said:
>>>>>
>>>>> "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the
>>>>> people
>>>>> some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the
>>>>> time"
>>>>
>>>> Yup, was sent to me by email. What makes you think i was claiming
>>>> responsiblity for it? Just cut and paste it straight in.
>>>
>>> Did I say that? I thought I said it was a weird coincidence which
>>> is what the quoted site said was the simple explanation for
>>> similarities
>>> of random occurrences.
>>
>> You're actually stupid enough to believe that it could be a coincedence?
>> I'm amazed - thought you were a bit brighter than that.
>>
>
> Sorry I let you down, I'm actually very stupid.
>
>
>>> Still it might be better to quote your source in future, afterall you
>>> did
>>> berate Brian for using statistics without reference to his source. Best
>>> to
>>> be consistent if you wish to be thought of as credible. Perhaps you
>>> don't
>>> though :-)
>>
>> Well in future, when posting light hearted scrapings, jokes, riddles and
>> any
>> other trivia i'll be sure to post my source with it. So in relation to
>> jokes, should I say like "told by friend/dad/barman" or do you actually
>> want
>> names?
>>
>> Why would you want to call into question my credibility? Odd, for
>> someone
>> that has found a little home on ULK as a newbie and wants to unwind its
>> mysteries.... maybe you've been a wee bit obsessive about your research
>> and
>> have taken on the characteristics of other posters :-)
>>
>
> I have no need to question your credibility, I merely point out if you
> berate a poster for quoting statistics without a source some might think
> it incumbent to indicate your source when quoting historical coincidences.

Read back. I berated the poster for finding the statistics acceptable - for
seeing a 20% failure rate as quite an achievement. I don't care where he
got the statistics from. Why are you so offended on his behalf? You seem
to have taken it a bit personally on his behalf. i'm sure he's ok and will
be back promoting views I don't agree with, and i'll take them up with him
if he does, or take his side if he debates something and I agree with him.

You don't need to take up anyone elses fight here after the event. It gives
the impression you have trouble letting go of grudges or issues.

> You are even more suspicious than some of the others on here. God help me
> if I acquire some of those characteristics :-)

Being suspicious means always being prepared for the worst. Its got me this
far. ;-)


.