From: The Older Gentleman on
Geyser <fullflo(a)ebb.net> wrote:

> Bill Miller. wrote:
> > On Aug 11, 12:00 pm, Geyser <full...(a)ebb.net> wrote:
> >> Bill Miller. wrote:
> >>> ...
> >>> Yet my Uncle Jay has told me how dificult
> >>> it is for you to ever agree totally with someone or to agree to a
> >>> statement that is true that someone else, and not you, came up with,
> >>> so I understand.
> >> No, I don't think that you ever understood Uncle Jay. He was only
> >> talking about you.
> >
> > Well, obviously you do not read a lot of The Older Gentleman's posts
> > which are rife with argumentative nonsense many times unreleated to
> > the focus of the thread.
>
> There's no focus. Why are you asking questions if you already know what
> the correct answers are?

He's losing the plot nicely. A few more prods and we'll have the death
threats.


--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Yamaha XT600E Honda CB400F
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
"What you're proposing to do will involve a lot of time
and hassle for no tangible benefit."
From: The Older Gentleman on
Bill Miller. <jay-smith-1935(a)excite.com> wrote:

> Well, obviously you do not read a lot of The Older Gentleman's posts
> which are rife with argumentative nonsense many times unreleated to
> the focus of the thread.

It takes two to have an argument, sweetie.


--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Yamaha XT600E Honda CB400F
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
"What you're proposing to do will involve a lot of time
and hassle for no tangible benefit."
From: Bill Miller. on
On Aug 11, 11:30 pm, totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk (The Older
Gentleman) wrote:

> He's losing the plot nicely. A few more prods and we'll have the death threats.


I'm not losing anything. The only one losing anything here is you,
losing your credibility as some expert, since you're being exposed for
the phony you really are. LOL

Bill
From: Bill Miller. on
On Aug 11, 11:31 pm, totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk (The Older
Gentleman) wrote:
> Bill Miller. <jay-smith-1...(a)excite.com> wrote:
> > Well, obviously you do not read a lot of The Older Gentleman's posts
> > which are rife with argumentative nonsense many times unreleated to
> > the focus of the thread.

> It takes two to have an argument, sweetie.

Yes, but there's no "argument" that exists here, there's only The Old
Gentleman continuing to try and fool people that he actually is
something he isn't---a knowledgable individual---when, in reality,
he's just an old fool and phony spinning his ancient wheels and
desperately trying to keep up.

And, BTW, you can save the "sweetie" routine for all your "boyfriends"
and other butt-buddies. Find someone else who's interested in your
homoerotic thoughts. I'm not.

Bill


From: TOG on
On 12 Aug, 11:24, "Bill Miller." <jay-smith-1...(a)excite.com> wrote:


> > Wrong. Which dictionary did you get that from, out of interest?
>
> Webster's, not like the dictionary you make up in your head to serve
> your purposes of argument.
>
Well, that's really, really interesting. You see, I don't know of
dictionaries that actually provide meanings for phrases (groups of
words) unless the actual word in question has different meanings
according to which other words it's placed alongside.

It just struck me that the definition of 'more suitable' came more
from your own brain than from Websters. So I looked up more suitable
on Websters online. And it failed to provide a meaning.

I looked up 'suitable' and got this (http://www.websters-online-
dictionary.org/definition/suitable):

STARTS
Suitable
Adjective

1. Suitable for the desired purpose; "Is this a suitable dress for the
office?".

2. Meant or adapted for an occasion or use; "a tractor suitable (or
fit) for heavy duty"; "not an appropriate (or fit) time

(for flippancy".

3. Appropriate for a condition or occasion; "everything in its proper
place"; "the right man for the job"; "she is not suitable for the
position".

4. Worthy of being chosen especially as a spouse; "the parents found
the girl suitable for their son".
ENDS

'More suitable' and 'more+suitable' failed to score hits. I'd suggest
that 'more designed for a particular use' is your own definition. If
that is indeed the exact definition result you got, perhaps you'd like
to post the link?

If you can't, then I'm afraid it won't reflect well.