While I still feel like it ...
in [Chelsea]
|
Prev: 2014 World Cup in Brazil
Next: Parking the bus
From: Red Rackham on 25 Apr 2010 14:14 "JAB" <nochance(a)nohope.com> wrote in message news:Dw%An.941316$Dy7.639802(a)newsfe26.ams2... > On 25/04/2010 6:37 PM, Red Rackham wrote: >> "JAB"<nochance(a)nohope.com> wrote in message >> news:q3%An.941314$Dy7.906770(a)newsfe26.ams2... >>> On 25/04/2010 3:40 PM, Red Rackham wrote: >>>> "JAB"<nochance(a)nohope.com> wrote in message >>>> news:LtYAn.93354$1%7.59703(a)newsfe07.ams2... >>>>> On 25/04/2010 3:35 PM, Red Rackham wrote: >>>>>> "JAB"<nochance(a)nohope.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:wpYAn.93352$1%7.7162(a)newsfe07.ams2... >>>>>>> On 25/04/2010 3:16 PM, Red Rackham wrote: >>>>>>>> "JAB"<nochance(a)nohope.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:H1YAn.93350$1%7.35767(a)newsfe07.ams2... >>>>>>>>> On 25/04/2010 3:01 PM, Red Rackham wrote: >>>>>>>>>> "JAB"<nochance(a)nohope.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> news:NFXAn.93349$1%7.39680(a)newsfe07.ams2... >>>>>>>>>>> On 25/04/2010 2:08 PM, Red Rackham wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting enough for you to reply to it I see Le Dieu >>>>>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>>>> funny >>>>>>>>>>>>> that. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <yawns> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Can't all be as entertaining as you JAB. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Any more interesting "facts" that you've forgotten to post Le Dieu >>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>> now >>>>>>>>> I always find them a laugh especially the bit where you squirm >>>>>>>>> around >>>>>>>>> trying to show that you were right even though it's obvious to all >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> you're totally and utterly wrong yet again. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> One thing I did wonder, do you know that your "facts" are complete >>>>>>>>> bollocks when you post them or is it only when it's pointed out to >>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>> that you realise? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yawn. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Shouldn't you be at Stamford Bridge? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> PMSL >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Have I ever said that I go to all games or have I actually stated >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> I >>>>>>> go to some games ... yet another Le Dieu "fact" shown for the >>>>>>> bollocks >>>>>>> it >>>>>>> is. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Which fact is that JAB? >>>>>> >>>>>> You seem to be confusing yourself in your embarrassment at not >>>>>> actually >>>>>> supporting the team you bore on about so much. >>>>>> >>>>>> TIA >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No I'm going to the pub in ten minutes to watch the game ... >>>> >>>> >>>> JAB, you said you've shown another of my facts to be bollocks. >>>> >>>> Which fact Jab? >>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> One thing I did wonder, do you know that your "facts" are complete >>>>>>>>> bollocks when you post them or is it only when it's pointed out >>> to you >>>>>>>>> that you realise? >>> >>> Do I really need to say which of you facts have been shown to be >>> bollocks? >> >> >> >> Yes. You do. >> >> I said, 'shouldn't you be at Stamford Bridge'. >> >> You said, ' Have I ever said that I go to all games or have I actually >> stated that I go to some games ... yet another Le Dieu "fact" shown for >> the >> bollocks it is. >> >> So again I ask. Which fact have you shown to be bollocks here JAB? >> >> TIA >> >> > > Well I think we now have an answer - you think your "facts" are true and > when they are pointed out to be complete bollocks you squirm to try and > prove why they are true ... Le Dieu at his best ... LOL > > Carry on posting your "facts" as it always gives me a laugh ... > But JAB, it's you whose doing the squirming. I'll try again. I said, 'shouldn't you be at Stamford Bridge', you said you didn't go to all the games so that's another of my facts shot down in flames. Which 'fact' from my statement have you proved to be bollocks, JAB? Waiting.
From: JAB on 25 Apr 2010 14:38 On 25/04/2010 7:14 PM, Red Rackham wrote: > "JAB"<nochance(a)nohope.com> wrote in message > news:Dw%An.941316$Dy7.639802(a)newsfe26.ams2... >> On 25/04/2010 6:37 PM, Red Rackham wrote: >>> "JAB"<nochance(a)nohope.com> wrote in message >>> news:q3%An.941314$Dy7.906770(a)newsfe26.ams2... >>>> On 25/04/2010 3:40 PM, Red Rackham wrote: >>>>> "JAB"<nochance(a)nohope.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:LtYAn.93354$1%7.59703(a)newsfe07.ams2... >>>>>> On 25/04/2010 3:35 PM, Red Rackham wrote: >>>>>>> "JAB"<nochance(a)nohope.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:wpYAn.93352$1%7.7162(a)newsfe07.ams2... >>>>>>>> On 25/04/2010 3:16 PM, Red Rackham wrote: >>>>>>>>> "JAB"<nochance(a)nohope.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:H1YAn.93350$1%7.35767(a)newsfe07.ams2... >>>>>>>>>> On 25/04/2010 3:01 PM, Red Rackham wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> "JAB"<nochance(a)nohope.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> news:NFXAn.93349$1%7.39680(a)newsfe07.ams2... >>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/04/2010 2:08 PM, Red Rackham wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting enough for you to reply to it I see Le Dieu >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> funny >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <yawns> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Can't all be as entertaining as you JAB. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Any more interesting "facts" that you've forgotten to post Le Dieu >>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>> now >>>>>>>>>> I always find them a laugh especially the bit where you squirm >>>>>>>>>> around >>>>>>>>>> trying to show that you were right even though it's obvious to all >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> you're totally and utterly wrong yet again. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> One thing I did wonder, do you know that your "facts" are complete >>>>>>>>>> bollocks when you post them or is it only when it's pointed out to >>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>> that you realise? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yawn. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Shouldn't you be at Stamford Bridge? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> PMSL >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Have I ever said that I go to all games or have I actually stated >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>> go to some games ... yet another Le Dieu "fact" shown for the >>>>>>>> bollocks >>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>> is. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Which fact is that JAB? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You seem to be confusing yourself in your embarrassment at not >>>>>>> actually >>>>>>> supporting the team you bore on about so much. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> TIA >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> No I'm going to the pub in ten minutes to watch the game ... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> JAB, you said you've shown another of my facts to be bollocks. >>>>> >>>>> Which fact Jab? >>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> One thing I did wonder, do you know that your "facts" are complete >>>>>>>>>> bollocks when you post them or is it only when it's pointed out >>>> to you >>>>>>>>>> that you realise? >>>> >>>> Do I really need to say which of you facts have been shown to be >>>> bollocks? >>> >>> >>> >>> Yes. You do. >>> >>> I said, 'shouldn't you be at Stamford Bridge'. >>> >>> You said, ' Have I ever said that I go to all games or have I actually >>> stated that I go to some games ... yet another Le Dieu "fact" shown for >>> the >>> bollocks it is. >>> >>> So again I ask. Which fact have you shown to be bollocks here JAB? >>> >>> TIA >>> >>> >> >> Well I think we now have an answer - you think your "facts" are true and >> when they are pointed out to be complete bollocks you squirm to try and >> prove why they are true ... Le Dieu at his best ... LOL >> >> Carry on posting your "facts" as it always gives me a laugh ... >> > > > But JAB, it's you whose doing the squirming. > > I'll try again. > > I said, 'shouldn't you be at Stamford Bridge', > > you said you didn't go to all the games so that's another of my facts shot > down in flames. > > Which 'fact' from my statement have you proved to be bollocks, JAB? > > Waiting. > > >>>>>>>>>> One thing I did wonder, do you know that your "facts" are complete >>>>>>>>>> bollocks when you post them or is it only when it's pointed out >>>> to you >>>>>>>>>> that you realise? Still waiting ...
From: Red Rackham on 25 Apr 2010 14:42 "JAB" <nochance(a)nohope.com> wrote in message news:w_%An.179620$Vh1.49021(a)newsfe15.ams2... > On 25/04/2010 7:14 PM, Red Rackham wrote: >> "JAB"<nochance(a)nohope.com> wrote in message >> news:Dw%An.941316$Dy7.639802(a)newsfe26.ams2... >>> On 25/04/2010 6:37 PM, Red Rackham wrote: >>>> "JAB"<nochance(a)nohope.com> wrote in message >>>> news:q3%An.941314$Dy7.906770(a)newsfe26.ams2... >>>>> On 25/04/2010 3:40 PM, Red Rackham wrote: >>>>>> "JAB"<nochance(a)nohope.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:LtYAn.93354$1%7.59703(a)newsfe07.ams2... >>>>>>> On 25/04/2010 3:35 PM, Red Rackham wrote: >>>>>>>> "JAB"<nochance(a)nohope.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:wpYAn.93352$1%7.7162(a)newsfe07.ams2... >>>>>>>>> On 25/04/2010 3:16 PM, Red Rackham wrote: >>>>>>>>>> "JAB"<nochance(a)nohope.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> news:H1YAn.93350$1%7.35767(a)newsfe07.ams2... >>>>>>>>>>> On 25/04/2010 3:01 PM, Red Rackham wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> "JAB"<nochance(a)nohope.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>> news:NFXAn.93349$1%7.39680(a)newsfe07.ams2... >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/04/2010 2:08 PM, Red Rackham wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting enough for you to reply to it I see Le >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dieu >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> funny >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <yawns> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Can't all be as entertaining as you JAB. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Any more interesting "facts" that you've forgotten to post Le >>>>>>>>>>> Dieu >>>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>> now >>>>>>>>>>> I always find them a laugh especially the bit where you squirm >>>>>>>>>>> around >>>>>>>>>>> trying to show that you were right even though it's obvious to >>>>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>> you're totally and utterly wrong yet again. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> One thing I did wonder, do you know that your "facts" are >>>>>>>>>>> complete >>>>>>>>>>> bollocks when you post them or is it only when it's pointed out >>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>> that you realise? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yawn. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Shouldn't you be at Stamford Bridge? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> PMSL >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Have I ever said that I go to all games or have I actually stated >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>> go to some games ... yet another Le Dieu "fact" shown for the >>>>>>>>> bollocks >>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>> is. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Which fact is that JAB? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You seem to be confusing yourself in your embarrassment at not >>>>>>>> actually >>>>>>>> supporting the team you bore on about so much. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> TIA >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No I'm going to the pub in ten minutes to watch the game ... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> JAB, you said you've shown another of my facts to be bollocks. >>>>>> >>>>>> Which fact Jab? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> One thing I did wonder, do you know that your "facts" are >>>>>>>>>>> complete >>>>>>>>>>> bollocks when you post them or is it only when it's pointed out >>>>> to you >>>>>>>>>>> that you realise? >>>>> >>>>> Do I really need to say which of you facts have been shown to be >>>>> bollocks? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Yes. You do. >>>> >>>> I said, 'shouldn't you be at Stamford Bridge'. >>>> >>>> You said, ' Have I ever said that I go to all games or have I actually >>>> stated that I go to some games ... yet another Le Dieu "fact" shown for >>>> the >>>> bollocks it is. >>>> >>>> So again I ask. Which fact have you shown to be bollocks here JAB? >>>> >>>> TIA >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Well I think we now have an answer - you think your "facts" are true and >>> when they are pointed out to be complete bollocks you squirm to try and >>> prove why they are true ... Le Dieu at his best ... LOL >>> >>> Carry on posting your "facts" as it always gives me a laugh ... >>> >> >> >> But JAB, it's you whose doing the squirming. >> >> I'll try again. >> >> I said, 'shouldn't you be at Stamford Bridge', >> >> you said you didn't go to all the games so that's another of my facts >> shot >> down in flames. >> >> Which 'fact' from my statement have you proved to be bollocks, JAB? >> >> Waiting. >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> One thing I did wonder, do you know that your "facts" are > complete > >>>>>>>>>> bollocks when you post them or is it only when it's pointed out > >>>> to you > >>>>>>>>>> that you realise? > > > Still waiting ... I asked first. Which part of my question are you struggling with? Let me know and I'll try and simplify it for you. 'Shouldn't you be at Stamford Bridge'? Would it be easier for you to point out any fact from the above sentence before you go on to point out which one you showed to be complete bollocks. Or is it the truth that only one person's talking bollocks here and it's not me. HTH
From: JAB on 25 Apr 2010 14:45 On 25/04/2010 7:42 PM, Red Rackham wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> One thing I did wonder, do you know that your "facts" are >> complete >>>>>>>>>>>> bollocks when you post them or is it only when it's pointed out >>>>>> to you >>>>>>>>>>>> that you realise? If you don't wish to answer it then don't but it's clear what the answer is ... it's just a shame you can't admit it to yourself. Oh well ...
From: Red Rackham on 25 Apr 2010 14:46
"JAB" <nochance(a)nohope.com> wrote in message news:o50Bn.179622$Vh1.21372(a)newsfe15.ams2... > On 25/04/2010 7:42 PM, Red Rackham wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> One thing I did wonder, do you know that your "facts" are > >> complete > >>>>>>>>>>>> bollocks when you post them or is it only when it's > pointed out > >>>>>> to you > >>>>>>>>>>>> that you realise? > > If you don't wish to answer it then don't but it's clear what the answer > is ... it's just a shame you can't admit it to yourself. Oh well ... Why don't you want to answer my question JAB? |