Re: hmmm
"Foot Manta" <hurk@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dj90ad$h2f$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Mick" <Mick@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1129838143.8819e1efaee9db030857e350639cd80e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Foot Manta" <hurk@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dj7r44$jtg$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"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.
You suggested I read back and I did. I'm just reporting it. I've made a
note for future reference not to consider consistency a quality you
consider worthy in a discussion.
Still that "special interest" in me and my qualities. And the only one
to be that passionate about what I say. Though as of yet, you haven't
debated any issue with me directly.... just some of my personal
"qualities". Shame really, you seem quite an articulate fellow.
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. :-)
Autopsy? analysis? paranoia? lol what are you talking about?
I think i've made that quite clear. Which part don't you understand?
Hmmm, take a leaf out of your own book and read your last three
paragraphs again. And then have a cup of tea.
I don't drink tea. You are a little odd though, wouldn't you agree? Is
there anyone else that you're paying close attention too other than JB
of course? Now I know your reasons for paying close attention to JB (or
at least I can imagine), but just what is it about me? Hope they're not
the same reasons ;-)
Lol, try coffee.
Your vanity is impressive, your reply silly.
.
