Originally posted by FMFlink or lie effhim, you played and lost, only after been repeatedly termed a liar were you forced to come up with the reddies. To avoid this in future cite clear and direct references to your statistics. Thank you for playing link or lie.
So you're being serious about all this? This is you being serious?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat "reddies"?
link or lie effhim, you played and lost, only after been repeatedly termed a liar were you forced to come up with the reddies. To avoid this in future cite clear and direct references to your statistics. Thank you for playing link or lie.
You do realize, don't you, that I didn't give any "direct links" on page 168 either? I just cited the same web sites as on page 166 and still with no "direct links".
Does this mean ~ according to your logic ~ it's still reasonable for you to go on calling me a liar - even now - and to keep doing so until you get the "direct links" you keep insisting you must have?
Originally posted by FMFRobin is sounding more and more desperate.
What "reddies"?
You do realize, don't you, that I didn't give any "direct links" on page 168 either? I just cited the same web sites as on page 166 and still with no "direct links".
Does this mean ~ according to your logic ~ it's [b]still reasonable for you to go on calling me a liar - even now - and to keep doing so until you get the "direct links" you keep insisting you must have?[/b]
Originally posted by rookie54Welcome to yet another installment of the FMF and Robbie Show. Glad they took their show on the road to the GF, so everyone can see what we've been putting up with in the Spirituality Forum for years now.
no, you did...
uh uh, you did...
no, you...
no way, you did...
hognutz, you did...
just read what you wrote, numbhead...
no, YOU read...
i don't have to, you do...
wrong, you do...
no, you did...
uh uh, you did...
no, you...
no way, you did...
hognutz, you did...
just read what you wrote, numbhead...
no, YOU read...
i don't have to, you do.. ...[text shortened]... read what you wrote, numbhead...
no, YOU read...
i don't have to, you do...
wrong, you do...
Originally posted by FMFWell no because I through my own personal effort entered a compound text in a search engine and managed to track down your elusive quote thus corroborating what you yourself could not bring yourself to do.
What "reddies"?
You do realize, don't you, that I didn't give any "direct links" on page 168 either? I just cited the same web sites as on page 166 and still with no "direct links".
Does this mean ~ according to your logic ~ it's [b]still reasonable for you to go on calling me a liar - even now - and to keep doing so until you get the "direct links" you keep insisting you must have?[/b]
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAh. So me providing "direct links" was NOT the issue after all. You simply stopped calling me a liar when you realized you were wrong.
Well no because I through my own personal effort entered a compound text in a search engine and managed to track down your elusive quote thus corroborating what you yourself could not bring yourself to do.
Originally posted by FMFIt most certainly was the issue because had you provided a direct link when asked you would not have been termed a liar. Why you could not provide a direct link remains unanswered. So far you have proffered because you were being termed a liar which is quite simply nonsense. Tell us why you could not provide a direct link effhim? Dog bites man! Link please. bbc.co.uk
Ah. So me providing "direct links" was NOT the issue after all. You simply stopped calling me a liar when you realized you were wrong.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI still haven't provided any "direct links". And yet you have stopped calling me a liar. Indeed, now you realize I had been telling the truth all along, as I always do. Perhaps you should remember that.
It most certainly was the issue because had you provided a direct link when asked you would not have been termed a liar. Why you could not provide a direct link remains unanswered. So far you have proffered because you were being termed a liar which is quite simply nonsense.
Originally posted by FMFYes but it does not matter because your text has been corroborated and you cannot be termed a liar unless of course you want to? Others provided a direct link like your slobbering sidekick divesgeester, here it is.
I still haven't provided any "direct links". And yet you have stopped calling me a liar. Indeed, now you realize I had been telling the truth all along, as I always do. Perhaps you should remember that.
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Suicide/Pages/Causes.aspx
You are now clutching at straws Effhim.
Yes clearly you are a saintly figure, we should have known better.
02 Feb 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHow does it feel to have been calling someone a liar for several pages when they were in fact telling the truth? It's not a situation I would want to find myself in if I were you.
Yes but it does not matter because your text has been corroborated and you cannot be termed a liar unless of course you want to? Others provided a direct link like your slobbering sidekick divesgeester, here it is.
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Suicide/Pages/Causes.aspx
You are now clutching at straws Effhim
Originally posted by FMFIt feels no different than before. Personally I think you engineered it.
How does it feel to have been calling someone a liar for several pages when they were in fact telling the truth? It's not a situation I would want to find myself in if I were you.
02 Feb 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSomeone who is simply telling the truth all along and is being told he is a liar by a poster like you does not need vindication.
ummm I have no idea what you are slobbering about. I think you engineered the entire episode so you could somehow be vindicated.