RobinXe wrote:
As mentioned guys, I apologise for allowing myself to be drawn in by trollery (again
). I will certainly be doing nothing further to feed this nonsense.
Ha ha, that's so lame.
Are you always this juvenile when you lose an argument? So in what way have I been a troll? (Will you even answer the question or will it just be yet another criticism of yours which you won't even attempt to defend?) If anyone has been a troll, it's you with your constant attempts to engineer an argument that wasn't there. [My response from before]
RobinXe wrote:
hjeg2 is, of course, free to pm me if he wishes, but I doubt he will, and I doubt I'd read it.
Now what would be the point when you refuse point blank to answer perfectly reasonable questions on here? (like the one I put in bold)
How about even simply answering the question at the end of this post, if you can't bring yourself to withdraw it and apologise for it? [My response from before]
hjeg2 wrote:
RobinXe wrote:
Nothing to defend or apologise for, other than to the other forum users for being drawn in to an argument that dragged over several pages without providing any new content to the topic.
Only because you have such a problem with understanding English. How about even simply answering the question at the end of this post, if you can't bring yourself to withdraw it and apologise for it?
RobinXe wrote:
Sorry guys, I will do my best to avoid biting when the next troll raises it's head.
Ha ha, that's so lame.
Are you always this juvenile when you lose an argument? So in what way have I been a troll? (Will you even answer the question or will it just be yet another criticism of yours which you won't even attempt to defend?) If anyone has been a troll, it's you with your constant attempts to engineer an argument that wasn't there.
hjeg2 wrote:
RobinXe wrote:
Yeah, there's nothing about road-safety in there is there!
I can see that you're going to keep trying to get out of defending or apologising for all the negative crap that you came out with. Try again:
hjeg2 wrote:
RobinXe wrote:
So, I hope thats a little clearer for you. I've gone ahead and ignored the rest of your posts, as its all arguing about arguing and ad hominem, as predicted.
I take it that now concludes your contribution, or do you have any other road-safety related points to make?
No you don't get out of saying all the crap that you said just like that. Try again with responding to these points, in particular the bits that I have put in bold for you. Perhaps you would actually like to take it back that I had been proven wrong and apologise for saying that I had been?
RobinXe wrote:
I'm not going to argue with you about arguing!
That's merely your way of saying that you can't respond to all the points I've made.
RobinXe wrote:
If you've got nothing to contribute to the road safety debate beyond observing that there are more 20mph zones now than last year then I suggest you might feel more at home in another forum.
But why does someone need to contribute more to say what I said? You're just making excuses for your lame attempt to enginneer an argument.
RobinXe wrote:
You made an observation, it was accurate, you made some conjectures, they were inaccurate. We dealt with that. You started throwing insults, and 90% of your posts became either ad hominem or complaining that points of yours hadn't been addressed, when all the ones about road safety have been, I've been back and checked.
And you started with the negativity in your very first response. It is a shame that you are too childish to admit that.
Here is one particular question that I asked you before but which you have now repeatedly ignored:
Robin, in what way have I been proven wrong??? _________________________
Here's another post which I'm sure you will keep trying to ignore because you are so weak and pathetic that you can never admit that you make mistakes and don't understand things, so you have to try and turn things round to blame others.
I bet it really gets to you that someone has clearly got the better of you in an argument.
hjeg2 wrote:
There was something in particular which I think you should respond to:
--
You say that it's a problem with my articulation, except that:
(a) No-one else has had a problem understanding my posts. Well?
(b) You didn't understand you own link. Is that a problem with the dictionary not articulating very well?
(c) You didn't understand my position from my very first post, and considering that it was a short one, there was no way I normal person couldn't have understood it. Well?
(d) For ages you went on about me supposedly talking about someone "calculating" their speed in relation to the speed limit, when that was clearly not the case as I had clearly indicated that it was an example. Well?
--
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
