JohnG@lt wrote:

mikkel wrote:

I referred you to my first post, because what I had said, and the answers to your questions, had been posted there. That you chose to wholly ignore the contents and reply with pointless assumptions and characterisation is not my problem.
Or it could be that you were making unsubstantiated claims or repeating something you heard someone else say without understanding. It really shouldn't be all that difficult to back up your statements, now should it? It's easy to sound smart and browbeat people with words you think are big but it's rather difficult to back it up when you don't have a leg to stand on and are challenged, eh?
What on Earth are you trying to say? Can you boil down that wall of nothing and tell me precisely what it is that you want to hear? You ignore what I post just to throw around random insults, and then you ask me for what you ignored, which you again ignore. You've posted insults, assumptions, and absolutely nothing of value in this thread. If you want to debate something, then go ahead and debate it. If not, quit wasting everyone's time.

It really shouldn't be all that difficult to back up your statements, now should it? It's easy to sound smart and browbeat people with words you think are big but it's rather difficult to back it up when you don't have a leg to stand on and are challenged, eh?
This looks like a perfect description of your first reply to my post.

Last edited by mikkel (2009-10-17 07:35:29)