Antimoon:<<MrPedantic Sat Feb 23, 2008 11:34 am GMT>>
One minute earlier, Mr P:
Lydbury: Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 11:42 am Post subject:
One minute earlier, Mr P:
Lydbury: Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 11:42 am Post subject:
Pronoun use
Your arithmetic is a little askew, old boy. 11:34 is 8 minutes earlier than 11:42.
MrP
MrP
<Your arithmetic is a little askew, old boy. 11:34 is 8 minutes earlier than 11:42.>
So it only took you eight minitues to think of your "extension"? Not bad.
So it only took you eight minitues to think of your "extension"? Not bad.
<So it only took you eight minitues to think of your "extension"? Not bad.>
Hasty posting only leads to spelling mistakes and faulty arithmetic, old thing.
MrP
PS: I'm rather surprised this thread hasn't yet received a visit from Pos, M56, Bridget, etc.
Hasty posting only leads to spelling mistakes and faulty arithmetic, old thing.
MrP
PS: I'm rather surprised this thread hasn't yet received a visit from Pos, M56, Bridget, etc.
<PS: I'm rather surprised this thread hasn't yet received a visit from Pos, M56, Bridget, etc.>
Hasty posting can also be a sign of faulty eyesight:
<<Pos Fri Feb 22, 2008 8:13 pm GMT >>
Hasty posting can also be a sign of faulty eyesight:
<<Pos Fri Feb 22, 2008 8:13 pm GMT >>
You killed it here, Josh:
<We don't need three threads on the same topic. I'm deleting the other two. >
<We don't need three threads on the same topic. I'm deleting the other two. >
<We don't need three threads on the same topic. I'm deleting the other two. >
Thing is, the topic was not the same in each.
Thing is, the topic was not the same in each.
It would be more productive to discuss the subject here, than to complain that you can't discuss it elsewhere. For instance:
<In #2, the focus of concern is the act of dancing. In #1, the focus of concern is that that particular person is dancing.>
Do you agree or disagree with that statement?
MrP
<In #2, the focus of concern is the act of dancing. In #1, the focus of concern is that that particular person is dancing.>
Do you agree or disagree with that statement?
MrP
<It would be more productive to discuss the subject here, than to complain that you can't discuss it elsewhere.>
Which subject? There was more than one. That's why I posted three threads.
BTW, I'm surprised to find you over here, after you criticised the usefulness of this forum and the capabilities of its members.
What are you doing here?
Which subject? There was more than one. That's why I posted three threads.
BTW, I'm surprised to find you over here, after you criticised the usefulness of this forum and the capabilities of its members.
What are you doing here?
<Which subject? There was more than one. That's why I posted three threads.>
It seems most improbable that the subject of this thread cannot be discussed without reference to the other two threads. You would surely have combined the three, if that had been the case.
If on the other hand the subject of this thread *can* be discussed in isolation, the fate of the other two threads is immaterial.
I suggest that you resume the original discussion. If the deleted material was relevant, it can no doubt be incorporated in your reply.
MrP
It seems most improbable that the subject of this thread cannot be discussed without reference to the other two threads. You would surely have combined the three, if that had been the case.
If on the other hand the subject of this thread *can* be discussed in isolation, the fate of the other two threads is immaterial.
I suggest that you resume the original discussion. If the deleted material was relevant, it can no doubt be incorporated in your reply.
MrP
<<<<It seems most improbable that the subject of this thread cannot be discussed without reference to the other two threads.>>>
As you didn't see the other threads, you'll never know, will you? So, you are speaking from ignorance.
As you didn't see the other threads, you'll never know, will you? So, you are speaking from ignorance.
<<<I suggest that you resume the original discussion.>>>
I suggest you cease with your sucking up to the moderator and go back to the fora you love to control.
I suggest you cease with your sucking up to the moderator and go back to the fora you love to control.
I saw those three threads, there were three questions on the same subject. You can discuss the subject in general in a single thread.
But since trolling started as soon as in the fist page and all you seem more interested in trolling than getting opinions on your questions, you don't need three threads, one is enough for trolling.
And it's going to be locked as soon as Josh notice it again.
But since trolling started as soon as in the fist page and all you seem more interested in trolling than getting opinions on your questions, you don't need three threads, one is enough for trolling.
And it's going to be locked as soon as Josh notice it again.
<I saw those three threads, there were three questions on the same subject. You can discuss the subject in general in a single thread. >
Really? Can you name the topic line and describe subject of each of those other two threads? I think not.
Really? Can you name the topic line and describe subject of each of those other two threads? I think not.
<...you are speaking from ignorance...>
Well, you don't seem very interested in a discussion of your original question; so I'll leave you to your fulminations.
Have a pleasant evening, old chap.
MrP
Well, you don't seem very interested in a discussion of your original question; so I'll leave you to your fulminations.
Have a pleasant evening, old chap.
MrP