Metropol

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.

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.

No, I DIDN'T.
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...

You tried to be a smartarse. AND once again you DID do what I've just stated:

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.

My approach isn't aggressive, you're just being evasive and I'm just being methodical.

Sput wrote:My approach isn't aggressive, you're just being evasive and I'm just being methodical.

You're not being methodical, at all, and you know it.

You lost! But I'll let it go this time, as it's Christmas! Don't do it again!

Riiiiiight, bye then.

Sput wrote:Riiiiiight, bye then.

Indeed. Just this once!

Yeah, very kind of you to spare me.

Shut up Stuart!

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.

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.

*sends packet of mouth wipes*

Stuart* wrote:

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.

No, I DIDN'T.
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...

I don't think the last page of unpleasantness arose out of 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.