On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 17:05:50 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron"
wrote:


Waste someone elses time idiot.


Simply following your example.


No, you're too f*cking thick to follow your nose let alone someone elses
example.


So having been caught out you have to resort to personal abuse, how sad.


That would be something like.

Message-ID:

"Ah at last, the standard "**** you Jack, I'm OK" attitude."


The only thing 'caught out' here is your rather limited intellect which
managed to contradict itself multiple times in the one thread.

The next time you attempt to falsely ascribe views you pathetic train
spotter I suggest finding someone else.


greg

--
Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland.
I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan.
You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide.

Greg Hennessy wrote:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 17:05:50 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron"
wrote:


Waste someone elses time idiot.


Simply following your example.


No, you're too f*cking thick to follow your nose let
alone someone elses example.


So having been caught out you have to resort to personal
abuse, how sad.


That would be something like.

Message-ID:

"Ah at last, the standard "**** you Jack, I'm OK" attitude."


The only thing 'caught out' here is your rather limited
intellect which managed to contradict itself multiple times
in the one thread.

The next time you attempt to falsely ascribe views you
pathetic train spotter I suggest finding someone else.



How sad that you cannot separate the use of a common phrase to describe an
attitude to hurling personal abuse. So what were you saying about limited
intellect?

Aidan Stanger wrote:
Silk wrote:

Cast_Iron wrote:


Ah at last, the standard "**** you Jack, I'm OK" attitude.


It's **** or be ****ed, unfortunately. That's why we are
supposed to have governments and leaders to guide us.

Is it possible to **** without being ****ed?

Very much so, at least as long as one remains undetected.

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 21:13:37 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron"
wrote:


The only thing 'caught out' here is your rather limited
intellect which managed to contradict itself multiple times
in the one thread.

The next time you attempt to falsely ascribe views you
pathetic train spotter I suggest finding someone else.



How sad that you cannot separate the use of a common phrase to describe an
attitude

Falsely ascribing views and running away when challenged could be described
as an attitude. Given you had no evidence to support this supposition, it
clearly was a term of emotive abuse, never mind a clear logical fallacy in
the form of an appeal to consequences.


to hurling personal abuse. So what were you saying about limited
intellect?


That would be the lying goit who posted

"Wasn't me that introduced cars, was it you?"



greg



--
Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland.
I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan.
You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide.

"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 21:13:37 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron"
wrote:


The only thing 'caught out' here is your rather limited
intellect which managed to contradict itself multiple times
in the one thread.

The next time you attempt to falsely ascribe views you
pathetic train spotter I suggest finding someone else.



How sad that you cannot separate the use of a common phrase to describe
an
attitude

Falsely ascribing views and running away when challenged could be
described
as an attitude. Given you had no evidence to support this supposition, it
clearly was a term of emotive abuse, never mind a clear logical fallacy in
the form of an appeal to consequences.


to hurling personal abuse. So what were you saying about limited
intellect?


That would be the lying goit who posted

"Wasn't me that introduced cars, was it you?"




How sad that you haven't yet learnt about discussion and debate to explore
options and possibilities. Perhaps when you get to be a big boy you'll be
able to play with the grown ups.

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 13:03:48 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron"
wrote:


How sad that you cannot separate the use of a common phrase to describe
an
attitude

Falsely ascribing views and running away when challenged could be
described
as an attitude. Given you had no evidence to support this supposition, it
clearly was a term of emotive abuse, never mind a clear logical fallacy in
the form of an appeal to consequences.


to hurling personal abuse. So what were you saying about limited
intellect?


That would be the lying goit who posted

"Wasn't me that introduced cars, was it you?"


How sad that you haven't yet learnt about discussion and debate to explore
options and possibilities.

Something I suggest a lying troll who selectively misquotes, rewrites
others posts and then swears blind that 'it wasnt me guv' when caught,
should attempt to adhere to rather than projecting your lameness upon
others.


Perhaps when you get to be a big boy you'll be
able to play with the grown ups.


Most amusing coming from the Natural inheritor of Duhg Bollens mantle.



greg





--
Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland.
I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan.
You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide.

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003, Aidan Stanger wrote:

Silk wrote:

Cast_Iron wrote:

Ah at last, the standard "**** you Jack, I'm OK" attitude.

It's **** or be ****ed, unfortunately. That's why we are supposed to
have governments and leaders to guide us.

Is it possible to **** without being ****ed?

Yes.

tom

--
or are they poststructuralist terrorists? perhaps we shall never truly know.

Dan:
That'd mean that the very poor would pay almost nothing, and the very
highly
paid would be paying something like 99% tax.

Labour had very high rates of tax back in the 60's. Lot of the rich people
moved to France or tax exiles and took their businesses (tax wise if not
physically) with them...
Regards,
Martin

"Martin²" wrote in message
...
Dan:
That'd mean that the very poor would pay almost nothing, and the very
highly
paid would be paying something like 99% tax.

Labour had very high rates of tax back in the 60's. Lot of the rich people
moved to France or tax exiles and took their businesses (tax wise if not
physically) with them...
Regards,
Martin

The poor always want the rich's money and the rich always want to keep it
for themselves.

"Purditer" wrote in
message ...

"Martin²" wrote in message
...
Dan:
That'd mean that the very poor would pay almost nothing, and the very
highly
paid would be paying something like 99% tax.

Labour had very high rates of tax back in the 60's. Lot of the rich
people
moved to France or tax exiles and took their businesses (tax wise if not
physically) with them...
Regards,
Martin

The poor always want the rich's money and the rich always want to keep it
for themselves.

..............................................

The true art of Politics is getting votes from the poor, funds from the
rich, and a promise to protect each from the other. Problem is: all the
guys who know how to run the country, are too busy driving taxis or cutting
hair.

Luke.