Re: hmmm


"Mick" <Mick@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1129492285.0ca4fcb3f65b7720b8e283df0e410606@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Fat Mantra" <hurk@xxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:diqnlv$2bk$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> <snip>
>
>>> 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.
>>
>
> I might be stupid but my memory appears to be better than yours. On the
> 25th September you posted on the Education thread
>
> " If i've told you once i've told you 3 times....
> don't hand in statistics without quoting their source."
>
> You now say in relation to the same thread "I don't care where he got his
> statistics from". If you can square these two statements then credible is
> not the best word to describe you.

A throw-away comment and easy to spot line of humour. If i cared that much
about his source I would have pursued it, but as i said, I don't really care
that much and was more concerned with the point MB made, that to accept that
level of failure is unacceptable.

> As to the rest of your reply your extrapolation of what went before on
> this thread to this personal stuff eludes me.
>
>> 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. ;-)
>>
>
> Hmmm, that was my point :-)

Why are you trying to make a personal point over a group discussion? Odd
that you should single me out for an analysis of my responses in order to
confirm suspicions of my mental characterstics don't you think? Almost like
you are paying particular interest to me. Why is that?

It seems a little odd, don't you think? I don't get that feeling from any
other current poster... so the oversuspicion, paranoia diagnosis is out of
the window.

I've yet to see you perform an autopsy on any other thread and poster, but
i'll look forward to it, if only to prove to myself that you aren't paying
an unhealthy amount of attention to me. :-)


.