Metropol

cdd wrote:

Stuart* wrote:Just to be pedeantic: fora is the plural of a forum!

Just to be pedantic: pedantic is spelt "pedantic".

Fun focussing on minutae, isn't it? Really feels like a valuable use of time.

Oh, you're sarcasm is so wrong, cdd

What just happened? As for aggravating every thread you post in, stu, you'll see that you made several rambling posts over the past day and I've only pulled you up on this one. Also, I'm hardly the first to criticise you in this thread.

Stuart* wrote: I quoted a source of information regarding dates of the renumbering of UK mobile services and invited Nick to amend it, if he had a better source, as it seemed to disgree with his earlier statement. I note that he hasn’t: I can therefore only assume that what was stated on wikipedia was correct.

can I drag up the incident where stu tried to arguewith the moderation log that stated in black and white that he went around deleting posts left, right and centre? I can only assume that with his prolonged silence and lack fo reply to both my and Mr Q's rebuttals that he now accepts he was a delete happy post editing fool.

Stuart* wrote: I invited Nick to amend it... I note that he hasn’t: I can therefore only assume that what was stated on wikipedia was correct.

OMG i've only just read that properly! You assume you're right because no-one steps in to correct you? That's the most flawed approach to learning I've ever seen! I'm glad you're getting on in years, or I'd fear for the future.

Sput wrote:I'm glad you're getting on in years, or I'd fear for the future.

yup, is it 42 or 43? i'm not sure

A rather handy summary of Stuart's posts:

Ahahahaaa

Hymagumba wrote:is it 42 or 43? i'm not sure

43.

Trust me, I was there, looking at the company director reports.

Far more accurate than certain other sources.

Sput wrote:

Stuart* wrote: I invited Nick to amend it... I note that he hasn’t: I can therefore only assume that what was stated on wikipedia was correct.

OMG i've only just read that properly! You assume you're right because no-one steps in to correct you? That's the most flawed approach to learning I've ever seen! I'm glad you're getting on in years, or I'd fear for the future.

I asked Nick Harvey to correct the information if he could. I'm still waiting.

I am not at fault here, if nobody has challenged information that is available, then there is no case to argue.

So if I claim the sky is green and no-one can be arsed to correct me, does that mean there's no case to argue or does it mean I should keep reading?

Sput wrote:So if I claim the sky is green and no-one can be arsed to correct me, does that mean there's no case to argue or does it mean I should keep reading?

Keep reading