Nope, can't quite fathom this out yet. Leave it with me though, I'll keep thinking about it and get back to you.
My guess is people popping in for no reason but to make silly snide comments in the hope of an argument. I said earlier, I do find it interesting that some people see these things as a competition, and seem desperate to latch onto something to prove someone's wrong (or more accurately not 100%right) It's a shame, because there's so much that can be learned from discussion and debate, and it's far more interesting than schoolboy pissing contests and pithy name calling.
Back to the silly name calling. Yes or no? Whether a comment is snide is open to interpretation. I dare say most of yours could be interpreted as such. Now name calling is a bit easier to prove. Are you or are you not guilty of silly, childish name calling during this thread? Yes or no? Something you have the nerve to accuse others of.
What makes you say this? I posted to discuss the topic and asked questions and gave opinion; why do you decide to give me my motives, when such a short time ago you berated me when you choose to accuse me of it? Double standards, as normal, hey, Dutch. I'm no more interested in who reads my posts than you are. You guess wrong; PLT' s post was inaccurate, but don't let that stop you making incorrect assumptions, it hasn't so far. I asked why the thread had been closed. It was reopened. Who is agreeing with you? Seems to be a self-congratulation that is a tad wide of the mark. But you've convinced yourself, so that's okay then.
This thread is ****ing brilliant - accusing people of pithy name calling when there's numerous examples of that on this thread from the accuser...... Is there a legal description of this type of act? Someone must know...
This gives an opportunity for seeing how this may work: This is where the burden of proof lies with the prosecution - mainly, but not only criminal cases. . In civil cases, such as the one at the heart of this one's discussion, this basic tenet is not upheld as the rule of 'the balance of probabilities' comes into play. This is the judgment call at EFC, the test of their judgment is this and this alone. Now if, just if, the poster decided to take defamatory action, then that is a seperate case, not the same case, although elements will cross over in evidence. In this case another rule of law applies and it should not be confused with the first - your explanation of defamatory action amply describes it. The key thing is that they should be kept distinct and separate when discussing how the law applies. There is not one fundamental rule that supports both, it's a myth; the case action determines it. The law is known to be verbose and reducing it's long developed rules to one line is overly simplistic to the point of being simple.
It looks like some fragile ego's don't like a response in kind or mistake an uncomfortable statement of fact for an insult. Given the level of abuse hurled my way (and will quite likely follow on this thread), I think I'm very restrained, but then I guess I would think that. Anyway, I've repeated my view often enough,it's been confirmed by several others as pretty much accurate, and I'm comfortable for it to be corrected if need be. I like learning, but I've little else to add at the minute, so as some others seem to have been pretty much ignored so far, I'll wait to see where it goes.
Just give it up as a bad job mate. DMD is spot on as usual. Well I'm not sure about usual but he's spot on this time
i was gonna say the same thing !!! some people can't just make a point and leave it at that Sometimes the best remedy is to pop ur fingers in your ears and sing La La Laaa
Of course you do. You're the epitome of deluded. I initially assumed you'd been on the fizzy pops again, which at least would be some sort of excuse. So now you've spent a few days making an arse of yourself, but convincing yourself you've made others look like arses and that you've come out of this even greater than you were before, you're bored of this thread, so will close it/get someone else (but deny you had anything to do with it) to close it because "it's going nowhere"? This thread is pure comedy gold and I'm sure in the fullness of time will just disappear naturally, and another will majestically rise to take its place, with you right in the middle of it.
Do you just have that as a cut and paste in the hope that if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth? I'm not interested in making anyone look an arse. The fact you see things that way says much about you. I simply made a point. Others queried and challenged it, so I replied. It's what message forums are for. It's not a 'winners and losers' situation, it's simply about discussion.
To make sure he doesn't misinform readers I'd suggest deleting his posts or moving them into a thread with a silly name.
On the subject of wee, my friend got pissed up in Pozition a few weeks ago and decided to go for a 'sit down piss' and consequently fell asleep in the bogs. Never heard of anything like it. I don't think I've ever been so pissed I can't urinate standing up, regardless of where I'm aiming.
You like learning, so let me help you. Plurals don't require an apostrophe just because they end with the letter s.
