For the nosy types
in [Motorcycles]
|
From: don (Calgary) on 6 Jun 2010 13:00 On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 17:06:35 +0100, totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk (The Older Gentleman) wrote: >don (Calgary) <hd.flhr(a)telus.net> wrote: > >> On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 13:20:04 +0100, totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk (The >> Older Gentleman) wrote: > >> >And I *do not grandstand*, Don, by putting my work on the web. Examples you would be advised to >>>follow, Don. Please enlighten all of us as to what information and pictures I have posted to the web that I would be advised not to. >> >> Please enlighten all of us as to what information and pictures I have >> posted to the web that I would be advised not to. >> <snip> > >But if you accuse others of bragging when they *don't* post stuff to the >web, No I have suggested you are a braggart. Your track record here supports my opinion. Posting to the web has nothing to do with it >it raises the question of what you'd say if they *do*.... I call a spade a spade. If you choose to troll, boast, brag or simply act like an idiot I will likely point it out. > >You choose to put your work on the web. I choose not to. My own belief >is that it's possible to get into trouble by doing so, which is a very >good reason for not doing it. I suppose if I was inclined to post falsehoods that might be the case, but I don't. YMMV, etc etc etc. >
From: The Older Gentleman on 6 Jun 2010 13:05 don (Calgary) <hd.flhr(a)telus.net> wrote: > >You choose to put your work on the web. I choose not to. My own belief > >is that it's possible to get into trouble by doing so, which is a very > >good reason for not doing it. > > I suppose if I was inclined to post falsehoods that might be the case, > but I don't. YMMV, etc etc etc. How naive and unimaginative. I can think of all sorts of ways in which one could get in trouble by posting work stuff on the web. Nice insinuation of dishonesty there, by the way. You're getting better at it, but you're still intellectually way out of your league. -- 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: don (Calgary) on 6 Jun 2010 19:02 On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 18:05:24 +0100, totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk (The Older Gentleman) wrote: >don (Calgary) <hd.flhr(a)telus.net> wrote: > >> >You choose to put your work on the web. I choose not to. My own belief >> >is that it's possible to get into trouble by doing so, which is a very >> >good reason for not doing it. Providing the pictures and a narrative about what I thought was a very ambitious and interesting project was done for the interest of this group. It's a shame you want to use it for fodder for one of your endless arguments. >> >> I suppose if I was inclined to post falsehoods that might be the case, >> but I don't. YMMV, etc etc etc. > >How naive and unimaginative. I can think of all sorts of ways in which >one could get in trouble by posting work stuff on the web. > So you think posting vague and obscure references to your work and then following up with silly word games, ad infinitum, is safer than being clear and concise about what you do. I think that speaks to who you are, not so much what you do.
From: Twibil on 6 Jun 2010 22:20 On Jun 6, 10:00 am, "don (Calgary)" <hd.f...(a)telus.net> wrote: > > > I suppose if I was inclined to post falsehoods that might be the case, > but I don't. Oh dear. Don, posting something that you've invented entirely on your own -and repeatedly stating it as if it were an objective fact- is still a falsehood, even if you can't tell the difference. And you do that so often that it practically defines your personal posting style.
From: don (Calgary) on 6 Jun 2010 23:22
On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 19:20:02 -0700 (PDT), Twibil <nowayjose6(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Jun 6, 10:00�am, "don (Calgary)" <hd.f...(a)telus.net> wrote: >> >>>You choose to put your work on the web. I choose not to. My own belief >>>is that it's possible to get into trouble by doing so, which is a very >>>good reason for not doing it. >> >> I suppose if I was inclined to post falsehoods that might be the case, >> but I don't. > >Oh dear. > >Don, posting something that you've invented entirely on your own -and >repeatedly stating it as if it were an objective fact- is still a >falsehood, even if you can't tell the difference. > >And you do that so often that it practically defines your personal >posting style. I was wondering when Re-Peat would appear. You are a little behind schedule, but better late than never. It would seem to be you and Neil who continue to make that claim and repeatedly stating it as if it were an objective fact- is not about to make it true. Seems hard to believe you two have the audacity to perpetuate this figment of your imaginations, but then again we should consider the source(s). I haven't challenged it because both of you are cut from the same cloth and regularly disregard facts when they don't fit with your personal point of view. What have I said in this thread other than Neil has refused to back up his statement with a cite. TRUE. I have noted without support his claim may or may not be true. ALSO TRUE. What did I invent? |