| Superiority.
Posted: 7/10/2009 10:12:31 AM |
As for the sex,depends on the girth of your c0ckage
Average at best I'm afraid. I could pad it out I suppose.
You asked a question, and then, without giving me the opportunity to answer, you made a comment based on what I assumed you anticipated my answer to be.
So, I asked you to clarify what you meant by that comment.
Your responses to my requests have led you to admit:
You're welcome to your interpetation. In fact I have stated I have an opinion about you.....and commented on what I think are your motivations for your style of posting. Well, some of my opinions anyway.
And if I were to get banned for it, and it makes you feel 'superior' well, it's a price I can afford.
After all, you're the only person who knows the explanation which I've requested, and you've admitted that your response would probably be breaking forum rules.
No, I said possibly it would. In my opinion, all I'd be doing is being honest about my opinion of you, one I've freely stated could well be wrong, and of course, I could say almost anything but word it atrfully as a question, if I could be bothered.........but MY character is to be completely upfront in everything I do.
Therefore, your comment "It would explain an AWFUL lot." WAS a personal comment, and one you have no desire to explain or expand upon!
Not really, a personal comment would be to call you a...ooops, can't do that. | |
|
mart-b
|
Joined: 6/16/2009
Msg: 127 | |
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/10/2009 10:16:14 AM | Okay children
Can you guess which window we are going to be looking through today ?
That`s right, it`s the round window
and if you look closely children you you will see a few people doing what they do best
can you tell what it is they do best children ?
what phrase is it that describes them best, anyone ???
anal retentive
A term used to refer to a person who feels a need to be in control of all aspects of his or her surroundings. Or, in other words, an anal retentive person "can't let go of shit."
One who is excessively insistent upon the smallest detail of something, usually through ignorance or taking things too literally.
 | |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/10/2009 10:19:21 AM |
don't the words "would explain" constitute a hypothetical situation?
Should you really feed the animals in a zoo?? lol. | |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/10/2009 10:19:35 AM |
No, I said possibly it would.
Try not to correct people when they are right!
Check your MSG 113, part of which I've provided here for you:
It's nothing to do with testicles, it's about those forum rules you hold so dear, . It would probably be breaking them to say.
The word 'probably' appears there, not 'possibly'.
In fact I have stated I have an opinion about you..
Really?
Where? | |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/10/2009 10:25:09 AM | The word 'probably' appears there, not 'possibly'.
Have I misquoted myself again by one word?
Damn. I shan't sleep.
I mean how could I forgive myself such a sin?
Why not concentrate on something that matters? Things like that aren't clever.....they're not an argument, they're back to what I was saying a couple of days ago about grammar traps and nit picking. It's ridiculous that you think that constitutes argument in any way.
Really?
Where?
Not sure, as usual I just can't be bothered to look.
Are you trying to bore me into submission? it's a route which may eventually work, I'll grant you.
So, correcting the use of one word is seen by you as 'nit-picking'?
OK, let's just remind ourselves of your comment in MSG 136:
It is when taken to the Nth. | |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/10/2009 10:29:01 AM |
^^^ Trim your nails Sweetpea!
Hey thats a personal remark...unfair!! Modsss....moddsssss!!!
You are suggesting that I have low personal hygiene because my nails are too long....therefore i must be a lazy person! Thats it...its flaming... not on!!!
 | |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/10/2009 10:38:36 AM | ^^^^ I have already reported you anyway.
Have I won yet?
Edit: thanks for clarifying that VVVV
he won't notice this & I will win | |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/10/2009 10:38:58 AM |
Why not concentrate on something that matters? Things like that aren't clever.....they're not an argument, they're back to what I was saying a couple of days ago about grammar traps and nit picking.
So, correcting the use of one word is seen by you as 'nit-picking'?
OK, let's just remind ourselves of your comment in MSG 136:
No, I said possibly it would.
One word was corrected!
don't the words "would explain" constitute a hypothetical situation?
No.
I used the term would in the way the OED allows: expressing the conditional mood.
HTH
To those who have difficulty with English, it is a reference to the consequence of an act or event which hasn't happened yet. | |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/10/2009 10:58:41 AM |
Have I won yet?
Edit: thanks for clarifying that VVVV
he won't notice this & I will win
Win what? a garden gnome?  | |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/10/2009 11:03:19 AM |
To those who have difficulty with English, it is a reference to the consequence of an act or event which hasn't happened yet
To those who have difficulty with English, the conditional is actually a reference to uncertainty i.e. IF event A happens then B will be a consequence. Therefore A is clearly a HYPOTHETICAL situation which may or may not occur.
Does anyone remember what the original topic was? | |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/10/2009 11:06:51 AM |
Win what? a garden gnome?
...... or a free Health and Safety course (Superior Class). .... or a weekend away with the Thesaurus Society (Pedant Module included, and lunch) | |
|
mart-b
|
Joined: 6/16/2009
Msg: 137 | |
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/10/2009 11:15:34 AM | Okay, children, now it’s time to look through another window
That’s right, the bookies window, where we can check the odds in the Cunning Linguist Handicap Stake
And who are our cunning linguists today
We have the children’s ` favourite Bob the Builder and the other fave Mary Hinge,
And they look to be evenly matched
    | |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/10/2009 11:24:14 AM | What terribly spiffing weather we're having for this time of year hey chaps.
blah blah blah blah
My word, that;s an enormous snake you have round your neck mart-b
Hi Alex, long time no see
Vi, I may phone you later
Balkistu....is there much call for homes on the moon?
Jats, you will never win while i have breath....
Jo van..........i lied the bed picture better
Is anyone else bored by this yet?????????????????????????????????????? | |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/10/2009 11:32:36 AM |
Is anyone else bored by this yet??????????????????????????????????????
Only a lot! In fact its enough to drive a man to drink (ok I was planning on cracking a slab of beer anyway) so I'll apologise in advance for any drink fuelled attempts at livening up this thread later | |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/10/2009 11:36:39 AM |
To those who have difficulty with English, the conditional is actually a reference to uncertainty i.e. IF event A happens then B will be a consequence. Therefore A is clearly a HYPOTHETICAL situation which may or may not occur.
No.
The 'conditional' refers to (OED) "subject to one or more conditions being met".
A poster had implied that IF a particular question was answered in a particular way, then it would confirm an opinion which he held before he asked the question. That confirmation was therefore 'conditional' on the answer received.
In the example provided, Event A is NOT 'hypothetical', because 'it' (being the question) had already occurred! The only 'hypothetical' aspect was in the questioner's response to the only two possible answers that could have been received ie 'yes' or 'no', with regard to whether or not his original opinion was correct. | |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/10/2009 11:40:16 AM | Now come on everyone, be fair. The thread is entitled 'Superiority' and we have two guys desperately trying to prove that each is superor to the other. It may childish, but at least they're sticking to the topic. 
My money's on Bob the Builder, after all he's a 'superior' BMW driver and they always have the last bloody word.  | |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/10/2009 11:49:32 AM |
Now come on everyone, be fair. The thread is entitled 'Superiority' and we have two guys desperately trying to prove that each is superor to the other.
Well, interesting that you think I'm in any way desperate to win.........I can assure you, the amount of effort I'm putting into constructing arguments and anylising posts to formulate responses is minimal. This is just off the cuff gibberish. If I wanted to 'win' I'd put effort in.
It may childish, but at least they're sticking to the topic.
One of the things I pride myself on is still being childish at 43.
My money's on Bob the Builder, after all he's a 'superior' BMW driver and they always have the last bloody word.
I had to explain this to someone yesterday.
How much is a new 3 series with some toys on it? Go look.
How much is a 4 year old Aston Martin? Go look.
If it were about status, a person would buy the Aston, private plate it and you'd never know it wasn't brand new.
Owning a BMW is NOT a status symbol, it's a calling!!!!!!!
There is no better production car. I actually enjoy spending time it it! The stereo is better than the one in my flat! Sad? I don't bloody care.
Audi try to copy them........but so far have always been 2 or 3 years behind.
The Ultimate Driving Machine  | |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/10/2009 11:49:46 AM |
A poster had implied that IF a particular question was answered in a particular way, then it would confirm an opinion which he held before he asked the question. That confirmation was therefore 'conditional' on the answer received.
In the example provided, Event A is NOT 'hypothetical', because 'it' (being the question) had already occurred! The only 'hypothetical' aspect was in the questioner's response to the only two possible answers that could have been received ie 'yes' or 'no', with regard to whether or not his original opinion was correct.
NO. I'll type this slowly so you can understand.
"IF a question was answered in a certain way" means that the question has not yet been answered. It may be answered IN THE FUTURE. The event A has not yet happened. Hypothtetically, there are three scenarios (a) it is not answered (b) the answer is yes (c) the answer is no.
I never said that the ASKING of the question was hypothetical. I know you think you thought you knew what you thought I said, but I'm not sure you understood what you thought I meant. | |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/10/2009 12:01:15 PM | OMG does that make u a superior being cos I missed out a k ..
My life has ended.............I am no longer a superior being
But the other picture was better................
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV heheheheh very funny!! | |
|
mart-b
|
Joined: 6/16/2009
Msg: 145 | |
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/10/2009 12:01:49 PM | Hey cakes,
After the snake i stroked a skunk
But it had, had it`s gland removed
So you could say it had been de- odour-ised
| |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/10/2009 12:03:12 PM |
I had to explain this to someone yesterday.
Oh I just adore being patronised!
Owning a BMW is NOT a status symbol, it's a calling!!!!!!!
There is no better production car.
The Beemer gets fairly close to being a reasonable motor car I'll admit, but you wouldn't see me dead in one I'm afraid. Nothing would make me downgrade to a Beemer | |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/10/2009 12:07:20 PM |
"IF a question was answered in a certain way" means that the question has not yet been answered. It may be answered IN THE FUTURE. The event A has not yet happened. Hypothtetically, there are three scenarios (a) it is not answered (b) the answer is yes (c) the answer is no.
I never said that the ASKING of the question was hypothetical. I know you think you thought you knew what you thought I said, but I'm not sure you understood what you thought I meant.
I'm fully aware now of what you meant by Event A and Event B.
In your example, Event A was the answer, and Event B was the confirmation of the questioner's opinion.
Unfortunately, you claimed that the only 'hypothetical' aspect was the answer, viz:
Therefore A is clearly a HYPOTHETICAL situation
which isn't correct. The 'hypothetical' aspect (as I said) was in the questioner's response to the only two possible answers that could have been received ie 'yes' or 'no', with regard to whether or not his original opinion was correct. The answer 'creates' a hypothetical situation, it doesn't constitute one. | |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/10/2009 12:10:15 PM |
The Beemer gets fairly close to being a reasonable motor car I'll admit, but you wouldn't see me dead in one I'm afraid. Nothing would make me downgrade to a Beemer
I have driven 'better' cars. They weren't better!
It's the mix of well thought out toys, excellent handling, positive feedback, low noise, comfort, durability and design that in my opinion has yet to be bettered.
Ok, there are faster cars. Better handling cars. More comfortable cars......but not one I can think of which ticks all the boxes.
And yes, I've driven (not owned) a couple of Ferraris, one 'roller' and an Aston DB9. I honestly prefered the BMW | |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/10/2009 12:19:50 PM |
don't the words "would explain" constitute a hypothetical situation? [/quote} Your answer: No. The 'hypothetical' aspect (as I said) was in the questioner's response. Therefore the hypothetical answer to the question would hypothetically explain…hence you contradicted yourself as usual. I’ve just realised the situation here: this is a Turing test and I have to have a discussion with you to decide whether you are a person or a computer. Well my guess is….computer. Probably a Sinclair Spectrum. Am I right? Good night folks…. | |
|
| Superiority.
Posted: 7/10/2009 12:21:25 PM |
I’ve just realised the situation here: this is a Turing test and I have to have a discussion with you to decide whether you are a person or a computer. Well my guess is….computer. Probably a Sinclair Spectrum. Am I right?
And THAT is the cleverest analysis I have seen here yet.
SO true. | |
|
Home
login 
