The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml ?type=politicsNews&storyID=4106493
Page:
Might be clever, but I think the fact it was picked up from a tv program makes it more opportunist than anything else :P
Belldandy wrote:
that he was referring to
> this early 20th century english guy whose first name was Ignatious -
> he professed to know certain truths but was thought most likely
> insane at worst, stupid at best.
------
Nope, but I wished I had, it's a lot cleverer than my reference.
That's all I've been asking Bell, why *you* thought it was nice. Ok, we'll ignore the fact it's taken over a week for you to decide on a reason out of the 4 you offered but that's by the by.
See, that wasn't so hard now was it?
that he was referring to
> this early 20th century english guy whose first name was Ignatious -
> he professed to know certain truths but was thought most likely
> insane at worst, stupid at best.
------
Nope, but I wished I had, it's a lot cleverer than my reference.
That's all I've been asking Bell, why *you* thought it was nice. Ok, we'll ignore the fact it's taken over a week for you to decide on a reason out of the 4 you offered but that's by the by.
See, that wasn't so hard now was it?
Either way I'd defy any of you to relate it to the above topic...
Well my best guess was that, as I remembered Goatboy talking about some Sherlock Holmes type stuff ages ago, that he was referring to this early 20th century english guy whose first name was Ignatious - he professed to know certain truths but was thought most likely insane at worst, stupid at best. Given Goatboy's opinion of me I thought it most likely. the guy was also mentioned in a tv programme recently which is where I first heard of him, forget which channel it was on.
Belldandy wrote:
> No, he knows full well that I gave three ideas what he was referring
> to. Whether or not they were right is not anything I care about. I
> also said that if I was wrong then he could be so kind as to say what
> he was referring to so as to prove me wrong.
Heh. So lets see if I've got this right; you're happy to spend a few posts trying to make it look like I've got it wrong, and doing your junior sneering accordingly. Yet once it's been conclusively shown that you're being an evasive fool, then "you can't be bothered". Hmmm....nope, I think you'll find that's just cowardice on your part.
Whilst I'm here, lets clear something else up; this favourite wail of yours that "Whenever I do answer, you just pick it apart". Okay, firstly; 90% of your 'answers' are evasive and incomplete, and you know that. So quit your hypocritical, cowardly mewling about that. Secondly, on the rare occasions you do answer, most likely that the answer will raise other questions. That's what happens in a debate between grownups. You seem to be under the impression that everyone should receive your answers in awed silence. Not gonna happen. I post stuff fully expecting someone to try and pick holes in it. Maybe if you weren't such a petulant little 'tard, you'd learn to accept that about your own posts.
> No, he knows full well that I gave three ideas what he was referring
> to. Whether or not they were right is not anything I care about. I
> also said that if I was wrong then he could be so kind as to say what
> he was referring to so as to prove me wrong.
Heh. So lets see if I've got this right; you're happy to spend a few posts trying to make it look like I've got it wrong, and doing your junior sneering accordingly. Yet once it's been conclusively shown that you're being an evasive fool, then "you can't be bothered". Hmmm....nope, I think you'll find that's just cowardice on your part.
Whilst I'm here, lets clear something else up; this favourite wail of yours that "Whenever I do answer, you just pick it apart". Okay, firstly; 90% of your 'answers' are evasive and incomplete, and you know that. So quit your hypocritical, cowardly mewling about that. Secondly, on the rare occasions you do answer, most likely that the answer will raise other questions. That's what happens in a debate between grownups. You seem to be under the impression that everyone should receive your answers in awed silence. Not gonna happen. I post stuff fully expecting someone to try and pick holes in it. Maybe if you weren't such a petulant little 'tard, you'd learn to accept that about your own posts.
Belldandy wrote:
> No, he knows full well that I gave three ideas what he was referring
> to. Whether or not they were right is not anything I care about. I
> also said that if I was wrong then he could be so kind as to say what
> he was referring to so as to prove me wrong.
------
This is where I'm confused y'see.
You said "Nice little Ignatious thing", which means you clearly understood what I meant. So grabbing at ideas I *could* mean simply serves to illustrate that you didn't understand what I was talking about and merely tried to appear superior.
And my response was "I clearly don't need to explain to what I was referring, as you obviously understood enough to try and brush my comment off"
Are you getting my point Bell?
I'm not asking what I meant, I'm asking you WHY you thought it was a "nice little Ignatious thing"
Again?
Not what did Goatboy mean, but what did you mean.
Now, if you can't even explain your own comments, then you probably should stick to the Nintendo forums.
> No, he knows full well that I gave three ideas what he was referring
> to. Whether or not they were right is not anything I care about. I
> also said that if I was wrong then he could be so kind as to say what
> he was referring to so as to prove me wrong.
------
This is where I'm confused y'see.
You said "Nice little Ignatious thing", which means you clearly understood what I meant. So grabbing at ideas I *could* mean simply serves to illustrate that you didn't understand what I was talking about and merely tried to appear superior.
And my response was "I clearly don't need to explain to what I was referring, as you obviously understood enough to try and brush my comment off"
Are you getting my point Bell?
I'm not asking what I meant, I'm asking you WHY you thought it was a "nice little Ignatious thing"
Again?
Not what did Goatboy mean, but what did you mean.
Now, if you can't even explain your own comments, then you probably should stick to the Nintendo forums.
It sounds exactly like he's avoiding.
Bell, you did not answer.
You said I was "vague in the context" and offered 4 examples pulled from your ass.
I pointed out that in order for you to say "nice Ignatious thing", you had to understand the comment - otherwise it was just you trying to appear clever.
And I'll tell you how I know for a fact that you just threw that comment up and cannot back it up:
If you did know, then you'd have answered a week ago, complete with strutting and your usual magnanimous attitude when you believe you're correct.
You haven't answered still, nor will you ever. Because you never understood what I meant in the 1st place and therefore cannot explain why you thought it was a "nice little Ignatious thing"
Pretty sad really that you can't just say "No idea what you're on about mate" and move on.
Bell, you did not answer.
You said I was "vague in the context" and offered 4 examples pulled from your ass.
I pointed out that in order for you to say "nice Ignatious thing", you had to understand the comment - otherwise it was just you trying to appear clever.
And I'll tell you how I know for a fact that you just threw that comment up and cannot back it up:
If you did know, then you'd have answered a week ago, complete with strutting and your usual magnanimous attitude when you believe you're correct.
You haven't answered still, nor will you ever. Because you never understood what I meant in the 1st place and therefore cannot explain why you thought it was a "nice little Ignatious thing"
Pretty sad really that you can't just say "No idea what you're on about mate" and move on.
No, he knows full well that I gave three ideas what he was referring to. Whether or not they were right is not anything I care about. I also said that if I was wrong then he could be so kind as to say what he was referring to so as to prove me wrong.
Belldandy wrote:
> You're still on about that? Guess you missed the answer then...want to
> add anything constructive? No? Didn't think so.
Now that sounds to me like you didn't answer anything, and are attempting a slight of hand distraction...........
> You're still on about that? Guess you missed the answer then...want to
> add anything constructive? No? Didn't think so.
Now that sounds to me like you didn't answer anything, and are attempting a slight of hand distraction...........
You're still on about that? Guess you missed the answer then...want to add anything constructive? No? Didn't think so.
Page: