Oh my god, you are really that stupid, aren't you? I was replying to YOU, not him! The fact that his quote was also included in my post is inconsequential - your message was the last quoted, and I was replying to YOU. Everyone here would see that. Plus5 could see that. Why can't you?
So despite including both of our quotes, only mine deserved the "losing the argument" comment? Or is no one allowed to see that?
American ethics and being christian don't really mix for me. Now if you followed a 'I'm allright Jack, fff the poor, be ultra selfish' religion, I'd have respect.
I don't see how those are "American ethics", or any other ethics.
It's very simple what your Jesus taught..its giving everything you have to help the meek...you car..sold..your house..sold...help the meek...failure to do this consigns you to your christian hell.
In the passage that you seem to be citing, Jesus is talking to a rich man. He tells him that to get to Heaven, he has to give everything that he has to the poor. The rich man refuses. Jesus was making a point that the rich man cared more about what he had here than what he could have in Heaven.
I'm sorry ... I blinked my eyes shut for few minutes ... or you talking to someone else? I'll mute my ears for a while ... *plugs ear* LALALALALALALALALALALALA! THE SPECCY IS WAAAAAAAY BETTER THAN THE COMMODE AND NO AMOUNT OF STATISTICS CAN PROVE MY OPINION WRONG LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA!
So despite including both of our quotes, only mine deserved the "losing the argument" comment? Or is no one allowed to see that?
Maybe you need an explanation of quoting. When quoting to someone on a thread, the last thing written is the post that someone responds to. That also applies if there is multiple quotes in a post. So since you were the last one to be quoted, your post is the one that is being written about.
Everyone who uses forums regularly knows that. If your whole argument hinges on the fact that I posted with two quotes, then you really need to go back to school or something, because you've just made yourself look an utter fool with this whole subject.
I am easily confused ... this thread confuses me ... I say no-one is in the right, but all have a valid point ... I don't want to read further "points" from either side (though sadly I probably will because I am a sucker for thread-masochism).
Maybe you need an explanation of quoting. When quoting to someone on a thread, the last thing written is the post that someone responds to. That also applies if there is multiple quotes in a post. So since you were the last one to be quoted, your post is the one that is being written about.
Everyone who uses forums regularly knows that. If your whole argument hinges on the fact that I posted with two quotes, then you really need to go back to school or something, because you've just made yourself look an utter fool with this whole subject.
Maybe you only *wanted* to comment on my post, but by including plus5's you unfortunately left his post open to the same criteria. I admitted my mistake in thinking you were both the same user. I can only assume everything is in the clear light of day for you now and you're just a git with double-standards.
Why aren't his posts subject to "usually the one who is losing the argument" line, no matter how many quotes they're nested in?
Maybe you only *wanted* to comment on my post, but by including plus5's you unfortunately left his post open to the same criteria. I admitted my mistake in thinking you were both the same user. I can only assume everything is in the clear light of day for you now and you're just a git with double-standards.
Why aren't his posts subject to "usually the one who is losing the argument" line, no matter how many quotes they're nested in?
Because I was replying to you.
I don't think I've ever met someone as stupid as you. The level of stupidity you're showing over this matter defies logic.
For some reason, I feel compelled to quote from one of the most incomprehensible books ever written.
riverrun, past Eve and Adam's, from swerve of shore to bendof bay, brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation back toHowth Castle and Environs. Sir Tristram, violer d'amores, fr'over the short sea, had passen-core rearrived from North Armorica on this side the scraggyisthmus of Europe Minor to wielderfight his penisolate war: norhad topsawyer's rocks by the stream Oconee exaggerated themselseto Laurens County's gorgios while they went doublin their mumperall the time: nor avoice from afire bellowsed mishe mishe totauftauf thuartpeatrick: not yet, though venissoon after, had akidscad buttended a bland old isaac: not yet, though all's fair invanessy, were sosie sesthers wroth with twone nathandjoe. Rot apeck of pa's malt had Jhem or Shen brewed by arclight and roryend to the regginbrow was to be seen ringsome on the aquaface. The fall (bababadalgharaghtakamminarronnkonnbronntonner-ronntuonnthunntrovarrhounawnskawntoohoohoordenenth ur-nuk!) of a once wallstrait oldparr is retaled early in bed and lateron life down through all christian minstrelsy. The great fall of theoffwall entailed at such short notice the pftjschute of Finnegan,erse solid man, that the humptyhillhead of humself prumptly sendsan unquiring one well to the west in quest of his tumptytumtoes:and their upturnpikepointandplace is at the knock out in the parkwhere oranges have been laid to rust upon the green since dev-linsfirst loved livvy.
There. That single post makes much more sense than the continued existence of this pointless thread.
Maybe you only *wanted* to comment on my post, but by including plus5's you unfortunately left his post open to the same criteria. I admitted my mistake in thinking you were both the same user. I can only assume everything is in the clear light of day for you now and you're just a git with double-standards.
Why aren't his posts subject to "usually the one who is losing the argument" line, no matter how many quotes they're nested in?
Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, that was DanSolo's 99th post to this thread alone, and all of this verbiage in response to a trivial slight against his hobby.
Can the fanboy make it 100? Does anyone care? Will we be able to stop watching this train-wreck of a thread? Hold your breath, I sense post number 100 coming up right about now.
Watch this space. Yes, that space. Doesn't it make your eyes go all wibbly?
I don't think I've ever met someone as stupid as you. The level of stupidity you're showing over this matter defies logic.
So your "usually the one who is losing the argument" only applies to me personally, or to anyone (but not everyone) you feel like it does? Not a very good theory is it, if it only applies to the people you feel like it does at the time.
Next you'll say "the ZX has more retroscene activity", but it depends on who's post I'm answering.
I admit then that I am stupid as I am unaware of which of your "rules" only apply to me.
So your "usually the one who is losing the argument" only applies to me personally, or to anyone (but not everyone) you feel like it does? Not a very good theory is it, if it only applies to the people you feel like it does at the time.
Nope, just you. It's always applied to just you. No-one else. Ever.
I admit then that I am stupid
Finally! We have something you said that we can all agree on!
I expect several of us have been over there to have a laugh at you being anihilated by those guys. There's not much point in trying to pretend that you haven't been a total embarrasment to the C64 scene.
Why not just apologise?
Saying my insults are silly while including your own quote where you do the same thing (first) is known in technical terms as an "own goal".
You fool.
EDIT: They're not both your posts I concede, although the sudden influx of ZX lovers here could raise suspicions. Still my point stands. If the first person to use insults loses the argument, then you're saying I've won?
Again, this is a classic example where you have no clue what you're talking about. YOU quoted me, not myself. Not once have I actually resorted to using swearwords directed at you (kinda hard since I've barely posted on this forum!).
If you are going to try to win an argument, actually think about what you're going to write before doing so.
Why? You were wrong. You said that I quoted myself insulting you, when it was you who had quoted me. Follow the thread quotes properly - both Plus5 and I saw that you misread the message and came to a wrong conclusion.
So your "usually the one who is losing the argument" only applies to me personally, or to anyone (but not everyone) you feel like it does? Not a very good theory is it, if it only applies to the people you feel like it does at the time.
Next you'll say "the ZX has more retroscene activity", but it depends on who's post I'm answering.
I admit then that I am stupid as I am unaware of which of your "rules" only apply to me.
And it's the century! Four days of obsessive compulsion to argue the toss over something so minor on, and he's still going!
Can he make it 150? Why can't we stop watching this breathless display of a complete lack of self-awareness? Is two-day-old popcorn still safe to eat?
Why not let starglider do it? He can apply his "rules" on an ad hoc basis depending on how he feels about that poster at that particular millisecond to decide who's right.
Where's beanz? This guy is GOD.
Why not let starglider do it? He can apply his "rules" on an ad hoc basis depending on how he feels about that poster at that particular millisecond to decide who's right.
I think now you must have some medical condition. No-one can be that stupid as to not understand what's going on.
Comments
Yeah ... we be smokin'!
I don't see how those are "American ethics", or any other ethics.
Say what?
In the passage that you seem to be citing, Jesus is talking to a rich man. He tells him that to get to Heaven, he has to give everything that he has to the poor. The rich man refuses. Jesus was making a point that the rich man cared more about what he had here than what he could have in Heaven.
And, unless I'm very mistaken, boarding school inmates? I seem to recall Roald Dahl's autobiography Boy mentioning that.
I'm sorry ... I blinked my eyes shut for few minutes ... or you talking to someone else? I'll mute my ears for a while ... *plugs ear* LALALALALALALALALALALALA! THE SPECCY IS WAAAAAAAY BETTER THAN THE COMMODE AND NO AMOUNT OF STATISTICS CAN PROVE MY OPINION WRONG LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA!
Maybe you need an explanation of quoting. When quoting to someone on a thread, the last thing written is the post that someone responds to. That also applies if there is multiple quotes in a post. So since you were the last one to be quoted, your post is the one that is being written about.
Everyone who uses forums regularly knows that. If your whole argument hinges on the fact that I posted with two quotes, then you really need to go back to school or something, because you've just made yourself look an utter fool with this whole subject.
[EDIT]
Okay, where did your post go that I just quoted Karingal????
Why aren't his posts subject to "usually the one who is losing the argument" line, no matter how many quotes they're nested in?
I, of course, reserve the right to change meaning at any time in accordance with the DanSolo method.
Because I was replying to you.
I don't think I've ever met someone as stupid as you. The level of stupidity you're showing over this matter defies logic.
There. That single post makes much more sense than the continued existence of this pointless thread.
Necros.
"DanSolo Method, the" will be right in front of "Denienced" ... Is Arjun writing this down?
Oh and I couldn't be arsed to format it correctly.
I don't know, maybe because yours wasn't nested.
This thread is too active.
Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, that was DanSolo's 99th post to this thread alone, and all of this verbiage in response to a trivial slight against his hobby.
Can the fanboy make it 100? Does anyone care? Will we be able to stop watching this train-wreck of a thread? Hold your breath, I sense post number 100 coming up right about now.
Watch this space. Yes, that space. Doesn't it make your eyes go all wibbly?
Sounds like something from the memoirs of Salvador Dali, or something!? What is that?
Next you'll say "the ZX has more retroscene activity", but it depends on who's post I'm answering.
I admit then that I am stupid as I am unaware of which of your "rules" only apply to me.
Nope, just you. It's always applied to just you. No-one else. Ever.
Finally! We have something you said that we can all agree on!
Ok guys, pick the bones from that.
I apoligise if I have offended you in this thread, with my oh-so humourous sig, or in any other way, shape or form.
Please take a look at this thread and if you have the answer, then please reply. You expertise is greatly needed/appreciated.
Thank you.
The ZnorX
(-:
And it's the century! Four days of obsessive compulsion to argue the toss over something so minor on, and he's still going!
Can he make it 150? Why can't we stop watching this breathless display of a complete lack of self-awareness? Is two-day-old popcorn still safe to eat?
Hold onto your hats because this is STILL going!
Where's beanz? This guy is GOD.
If not, chuck it my way... running low over 'ere!!
I think now you must have some medical condition. No-one can be that stupid as to not understand what's going on.
Oh... you soo don't wanna go there!
I'd avoid the cheese this time around.
So, somebody noticed it!
Current runners and riders:
Who Posted?
Total Posts: 720
User Name Posts
beanz 104
DanSolo 102
karingal 78
dm_boozefreek 43
NickH 42
mile 36
ZnorXman 36
Daren 30
Jumping Stack 26
Scottie_uk 23
Still all to play for - sleep is for wimps!