"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Keith G
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Keith G
wrote:


Don doesn't give up in disgust - he gets into arguments he can't win
and eventually craps out.

I certainly often give up on trying to explain something to you.


Yes, you usually catch on eventually....

Thanks for demonstrating that you did as I expected and responded in a
patronising and childish manner. Cleared up any doubts I had.


The above is a
nice example of how you regard threads like this as an 'argument' to
'win' when the people who have tried to have a conversation with you
may have no such view in mind.


Bull****. I am being pounded by people who don't want to see me "win" -
includes you now...

Afraid you are still stuck in your self-delusion that what you write makes
you 'win' something when others don't comment or you can repond in a
patronising or abusive manner. Now with your added delusion that others
"don't want to see you win".

If you don't like what I post, why TF do you (and the others) keep
reading/replying to them?

In my case because I keep making the error of thinking it might be
possible to have a friendly conversation with you *without* you
descending into being patronising or turning conversation into
your delusion about how you 'win' and others don't want you to.
My mistake.

Also because when what you write contains errors then responding
may help others even if you don't like it and think it is my "not
wanting you to win". The group isn't your personal debating society,
solely provided as a forum in which you can 'win'.



Bit early for panto, but I'll give it a go:

**OH YES IT IZZZZZ....!!!**

:-)




But I agree with you to the extent that, yes, it is wasted so far
as you are concerned. But you don't have to respond to me, either.


Don does a much better *waspish* than you do...

:-)


self publicising spam snipped