Re: Olympic Torch Farce : Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:36 am  

G1 wrote:

Both sentences I quoted are assumptions on your part. Unless you actually know what I am and am not aware of, which you don't.

Another assumption.

Not so.

And if you are aware of the need for extra air taffic capacity in London and the economic benefits that will bring then why pretend otherwise.

Re: Olympic Torch Farce : Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:39 am  

Juan Cornetto wrote:

Not so.
.

So.

And if you are aware of the need for extra air taffic capacity in London and the economic benefits that will bring then why pretend otherwise

So you now have some doubts as to whether I am aware or not. Were you earlier comments then, not assumptions?

Re: Olympic Torch Farce : Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:39 am  

Seth wrote:

People like you?? You know nothing about me. I dont mind at all people with contrasting opinions, when theyre balaced with some positive appreciation of the occassion. But dismissing people as gulible, and belittling comments are not constuctive at all. Ive already said earlier that i can inderstand people having some concerns with the budget.

I know that you chose to use a put down first.

Re: Olympic Torch Farce : Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:39 am  

G1 wrote:

There are many worthy charities and many worthy contributors to them. I'm sure all those good people would welcome you churlishly dismissing any recognition of their efforts as "media inspired bullshit non events".

Nope, thats not what I said, try again though.

Re: Olympic Torch Farce : Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:41 am  

G1 wrote:

Been there, done that. Once took one of your paintings remember.

"Took" being the operative word, I think remuneration has to be exchanged before you can say "purchased" doesn't it ?

Re: Olympic Torch Farce : Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:42 am  

G1 wrote:

Hypocrite.

You have used derogatory terms and condescending language towards posters who disagree with you.

Name caller

I may well respond with interest but I try not to be the first to descend that path.

Re: Olympic Torch Farce : Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:42 am  

McLaren_Field wrote:

"Took" being the operative word, I think remuneration has to be exchanged before you can say "purchased" doesn't it ?

Personally, I think I overpaid.

Re: Olympic Torch Farce : Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:44 am  

G1 wrote:

:D

Personally, I think I overpaid.

Hang onto it, prices are about to go into the stratosphere for my work.*

*Terms and Conditions Apply

Re: Olympic Torch Farce : Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:45 am  

Juan Cornetto wrote:

Name caller

I may well respond with interest but I try not to be the first to descend that path.

I am more than happy to call names. I am more than happy to post in a condescending manner to those who disagree with me. I am more than happy to belittle many of the feklkwitts who "contribute" to this forum.

I'm a big boy though and what I won't do is be a hypocrite if someone responds in like fashion.

As you have done above.

I note you don't deny the charges of hypocrisy and that is to your credit because your hypocrisy is plain for all to see and I just felt you needed calling on it.

Re: Olympic Torch Farce : Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:46 am  

G1 wrote:

So.

So you now have some doubts as to whether I am aware or not. Were you earlier comments then, not assumptions?

I am not really interested in you awareness or lack of. My comments on the economic benefits of alternative projects to the Olympic games are not based on assumptions