Mobile Phone Companies - Good / Bad ?
No, I DIDN'T.Sput wrote:You didn't, yet you assumed you were right after one source because you couldn't find any more. You're equating the absence of information in other places, contrary or not, to confirmation.
Let's take your aggressive approach:
I didn't state someone was wrong I questioned whether they could be mistaken Everyone agreed everything was OK....then... Nick said everything happened on one day I disagreed with GOD... I end up defending data from wikipedia for eternity....Oh my! I asked a simple question...
User removed
You tried to be a smartarse. AND once again you DID do what I've just stated:
My approach isn't aggressive, you're just being evasive and I'm just being methodical.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.
Knight knight
You're not being methodical, at all, and you know it.Sput wrote:My approach isn't aggressive, you're just being evasive and I'm just being methodical.
You lost! But I'll let it go this time, as it's Christmas! Don't do it again!
User removed
Well said ^
Stuart, please, just give it a rest now. You have had a very good go at justifying yourself, unfortunately for you, it hasn't worked and any more will just drag your reputation lower.
So, please, please, just shut up and leave it.
Stuart, please, just give it a rest now. You have had a very good go at justifying yourself, unfortunately for you, it hasn't worked and any more will just drag your reputation lower.
So, please, please, just shut up and leave it.
*sends packet of mouth wipes*math-yoooo wrote:Stuart, please, just give it a rest now. You have had a very good go at justifying yourself, unfortunately for you, it hasn't worked and any more will just drag your reputation lower.
So, please, please, just shut up and leave it.
User removed
-
Gavin Scott
- Admin
- Posts: 6442
- Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 13.16
- Location: Edinburgh
- Contact:
I don't think the last page of unpleasantness arose out of a "simple question".Stuart* wrote:No, I DIDN'T.Sput wrote:You didn't, yet you assumed you were right after one source because you couldn't find any more. You're equating the absence of information in other places, contrary or not, to confirmation.
Let's take your aggressive approach:
Oh my! I asked a simple question...
It seems to me that you rather entrenched yourself into a very unnecessary position.
Based on your own summary account, you questioned one member's statement that their number had never changed; and then questioned Nick's assertive recollection of the number switch day.
I had no reason to question Nick's answer. It sounded very much like he was speaking with some authority.
Now its up to you to decide whether to take his words at face value; but spending time researching "t'internet" just to seek proof that he's wrong seems like a wasteful and counter-productive effort - not least because of the disruptive outcome on this and other threads.
No one is required to corroborate their personal recollections using Wikipedia or any other source - nor are they obliged to update a web definition just because it doesn't match with what they are stating.
If you are going to start questioning forum members about the veracity of their remembrances, you'd better have a much better reason next time - as I won't continue to allow threads to be off-railed in this way.
Merry everybody.