Because it snowed last night
in [Motorcycles]
|
From: Twibil on 19 Apr 2010 02:38 On Apr 18, 11:13 pm, totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk (The Older Gentleman) wrote: > > > Go back and read the posting again. Why bother? He'll just do the same thing he always does; which is read whatever meaning he wants to into your words, followed by accusing you of something you never said but that he wishes you had. I suppose it saves him all that time the rest of us waste in thought.
From: TOG on 19 Apr 2010 04:23 On 19 Apr, 07:38, Twibil <nowayjo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 18, 11:13 pm, totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk (The Older > > Gentleman) wrote: > > > Go back and read the posting again. > > Why bother? He'll just do the same thing he always does; which is > read whatever meaning he wants to into your words, followed by > accusing you of something you never said but that he wishes you had. > He has an almost supernatural talent for doing that, I agree. And then the frantic rationalisation that follows.... The attempts to justify Calgary's "dirty boots" impost were cherishably silly. An assertion that Calgary has mud that is so utterly different (bigger, more glutinous, heavier, more damaging, I dunno what, but utterly different, anyway) from anywhere else on the planet that such a tax/ penalty/fine (delete as applicable) is necessary, and a ludicrous back- of-envelope calculation using statistics made up on the spot.
From: Road Glidin' Don on 20 Apr 2010 01:14 On Apr 19, 8:37 pm, Twibil <nowayjo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 19, 5:34 pm, "Road Glidin' Don" <d.lan...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Of course, the last time they ran me through the Stanford-Binet test > > > series I scored 168 > > > And with just a little higher score you might even realize how > > unnecessary that oft-repeated claim of yours is. > > And if you'd ever stopped and thought about it for more than the > millisecond it takes you to pop off a knee-jerk reaction to anyone who > argues with your pal Calgary, you'd have realised that the only time > that subject ever comes up is when some twit tries using Usenet > cliche' #1: "I suspect you are the one trying to be dense, as usual." > or words to that same effect. You can't see it, of course, but you're the one demonstrating the knee- jerk reaction - assuming all those things you start to drag in. My comment was simple and straight-forward; about the sillyness of trying to bolster your argument with, "I have been tested to have an I.Q. of 160", or "I am a university professor" (or words to that effect). On the whole, you're above-average intelligent, but you seem to have an odd, insecure, infantile streak when people disagree with you. Don't bother trying to impress anyone with the I.Q. score. It only detracts from your argument when you behave like the argument itself isn't sufficient. Same thing goes with your reliance on name-calling and labeling as well. <snip> > In which case I will apologise handsomely, exactly as > both TOG and I have done in the past. ??? Really? I must have missed every one of those occasions then. You're right about TOG though. He can be counted on for honesty if he makes an error (which is seldom). That's one of the things people like about him. I don't think there are many people who actually like you, so you might want to slow down a bit before lumping him in with yourself. > > It's not hard to tell how intelligent the people posting here are (and > > differentiate between "intelligent" and those for whom education > > failed to have its intended effect). > > Yeah, and we all know that you define "intelligent" as being an ill- > educated hypocritical fundie who thinks Sarah Palin is above reproach. Actually, after having seen more of Sarah Palin, I'm not impressed (and, as a non-voter in your country, I had no duty to see more either). But, of course, you're referring to the fact I once opined it was out-of-bounds to go after her children the way some people did (including you) - which you assume to mean I'm a Palin supporter (another kinda like a "knee-jerk" reaction). You're a smart guy, Pete - I'm not trying to take that away from you. The only problem you have is that you're not nearly as smart as you want people to think you are. Which is why you need to periodically parade your I.Q. scores and advanced academic achievements (music teacher, huh?).
From: The Older Gentleman on 20 Apr 2010 02:23 don (Calgary) <hd.flhr(a)telus.net> wrote: > > >He has an almost supernatural talent for doing that, I agree. And then > >the frantic rationalisation that follows.... The attempts to justify > >Calgary's "dirty boots" impost were cherishably silly. An assertion > >that Calgary has mud that is so utterly different (bigger, more > >glutinous, heavier, more damaging, > > The more you continue this line of talk the more ignorant you look. It was your claim, not mine :-) -- BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple Suzuki TS250ER GN250 Damn, back to six bikes! Try Googling before asking a damn silly question. chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
From: Twibil on 20 Apr 2010 03:40
On Apr 19, 11:23 pm, totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk (The Older Gentleman) wrote: > > > > you are unable to paraphrase > > with any accuracy > > *Clink* > > Damn, that was the needle on my irony meter breaking. If this keeps up we may need to begin ordering in wholesale lots. |