Fast broadband: Telstra the only option

"Kwyjibo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "-=Spudley=-" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:%[email protected]...
>>
>> "Kwyjibo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> "-=Spudley=-" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Balanced debate, means NOT calling people names like "lard arse and
>>>> wanker" at every possible opportunity,
>>>
>>> Since when? Plucking definitions out of your arse is doing nothing for
>>> your already pathetic credibility.
>>> Balanced debate is simply the act of discussing an issue, with opposing
>>> sides presenting their own particular view on the topic. It doesn't
>>> preclude taunts or abuse.
>>>
>>
>> This might be so in your myopic unimportant world, where abuse and taunts
>> have become as normal as a second nature.
>
> ROFL at the most ridiculous hypocrite on the planet. Myopic? Unimportant?
> Just because you managed to string a few insulting words together without
> swearing does not make them any less 'taunting', you ignorant ****wit.
>

Likewise, just because you use profanity like it's the only language you've
ever known, doesn't make your verse valid, your arguments poignant or
believable. It only shows your arrogance.

>> But in circles where it truly matters,
>
> The only thing going in circles is your thought processes.
> You claim that balanced debate does not include taunts or abuse, then
> attempt to debate me by using those same taunts you so despise.
>

They are not the same taunts you silly boy. Like you would know the
difference between profanity, abuse or civil speech, this obviously and
simply escapes you.
Besides, myopic one, I inferred that taunts and profanity (abuse) were the
stock and trade of a person with poor and unbalanced debating skills.
The only way a person of such demeanour can argue is by abusing the other
person. You and those like you always to revert to calling an apposer
abusive names, for you have no other tools at your disposal and that
therefore makes you unbalanced and biased by your very nature.

Were you abused by your parents and piers through childhood or did you pick
up the habit at school?
I'm sure Roddles was.

>> decorum is a most important attribute, that's if you hope to get you
>> point across while preserving credibility.
>
> You've got nothing to worry about there. You had no credibility to start
> with.
>

Then nor do you.
Like it matters either way. NOT!


> --
> Kwyj.
>

---

› See More: Fast broadband: Telstra the only option

Awe Rod, such angst, take the meds dude, they will make you feel much
better.

"Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
> -=Spudley=- <[email protected]> wrote
> just the puerile **** thats all it can ever manage.
>

Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
-=Spudley=- <[email protected]> wrote
just the puerile **** thats all it can ever manage.

"-=Spudley=-" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Besides, myopic one, I inferred that taunts and profanity (abuse) were the
> stock and trade of a person with poor and unbalanced debating skills.

So you admit you have poor and unbalanced debating skills.
Thanks for clearing that up.

--
Kwyj.

"harryoid" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "-=Spudley=-" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> Balanced debate, means NOT calling people names like "lard arse and
>>>>>> wanker" at every possible opportunity,
>>>>>
>>>>> Since when? Plucking definitions out of your arse is doing nothing for
>>>>> your already pathetic credibility.
>>>>> Balanced debate is simply the act of discussing an issue, with
>>>>> opposing sides presenting their own particular view on the topic. It
>>>>> doesn't preclude taunts or abuse.
>>>>
>>>> This might be so in your myopic unimportant world, where abuse and
>>>> taunts have become as normal as a second nature.
>
> LOL! "The ironing is delicious"...
>

Then you must be a board.

>>> ROFL at the most ridiculous hypocrite on the planet. Myopic?
>>> Unimportant? Just because you managed to string a few insulting words
>>> together without swearing does not make them any less 'taunting', you
>>> ignorant ****wit.
>>>
>>
>> Likewise, just because you use profanity like it's the only language
>> you've ever known, doesn't make your verse valid, your arguments poignant
>> or believable. It only shows your arrogance.
>>
>>>> But in circles where it truly matters,
>>>
>>> The only thing going in circles is your thought processes.
>>> You claim that balanced debate does not include taunts or abuse, then
>>> attempt to debate me by using those same taunts you so despise.
>>
>> They are not the same taunts you silly boy. Like you would know the
>> difference between profanity, abuse or civil speech, this obviously and
>> simply escapes you.
>> Besides, myopic one, I inferred that taunts and profanity (abuse) were
>> the stock and trade of a person with poor and unbalanced debating skills.
>> The only way a person of such demeanour can argue is by abusing the other
>> person. You and those like you always to revert to calling an apposer
>> abusive names, for you have no other tools at your disposal and that
>> therefore makes you unbalanced and biased by your very nature.
>>
>> Were you abused by your parents and piers through childhood
>
> I can't speak for Kwijibo, but in my youth I was mercilessly taunted by an
> abusive pillar...
>

How a about your peers then? Were they pillars of society?

>> or did you pick up the habit at school?
>> I'm sure Roddles was.
>>
>>>> decorum is a most important attribute, that's if you hope to get you
>>>> point across while preserving credibility.
>>>
>>> You've got nothing to worry about there. You had no credibility to start
>>> with.
>>
>> Then nor do you.
>> Like it matters either way. NOT!
>
> That's some good reasoned debate, Steve. Your victory is assured...

Heh, you're just another steve sayer in wolves clothing.
Oh, I wasn't aware that this was a debate here or that there were any
victories to be made?

"Kwyjibo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "-=Spudley=-" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Besides, myopic one, I inferred that taunts and profanity (abuse) were
>> the stock and trade of a person with poor and unbalanced debating skills.
>
> So you admit you have poor and unbalanced debating skills.
> Thanks for clearing that up.
>

Then you misread as usual. No surprises there.


> --
> Kwyj.
>

*YAWN* is my staunch reply.
Like so much of your fodder that has gone before.

"Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
> -=Spudley=- <[email protected]> wrote
> just the puerile **** thats all it can ever manage.
>

"-=Spudley=-" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Kwyjibo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "-=Spudley=-" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Besides, myopic one, I inferred that taunts and profanity (abuse) were
>>> the stock and trade of a person with poor and unbalanced debating
>>> skills.
>>
>> So you admit you have poor and unbalanced debating skills.
>> Thanks for clearing that up.
>>
>
> Then you misread as usual.

Nope.

> No surprises there.
>

Your basic premise is that taunts and profanity are indicative of poor
debating skills. You made that point while at the same time attempting to
taunt me with words such as 'myopic' and 'unimportant'
Try putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with something other than your
foot wedged firmly in your mouth.

You're not very good at this whole 'logical argument' thing, are you
****wit?

--
Kwyj.

Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
-=Spudley=- <[email protected]> wrote
just the puerile **** thats all it can ever manage.

"Kwyjibo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "-=Spudley=-" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Kwyjibo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> "-=Spudley=-" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Besides, myopic one, I inferred that taunts and profanity (abuse) were
>>>> the stock and trade of a person with poor and unbalanced debating
>>>> skills.
>>>
>>> So you admit you have poor and unbalanced debating skills.
>>> Thanks for clearing that up.
>>>
>>
>> Then you misread as usual.
>
> Nope.
>
>> No surprises there.
>>
>
> Your basic premise is that taunts and profanity are indicative of poor
> debating skills.

Nope, you missed something right there.
"Taunts" was your introduced word into this conversation. You fabricate
stuff and then try to argue against me with your misconception.

> You made that point while at the same time attempting to taunt me with
> words such as 'myopic' and 'unimportant'

That's where you go off the rails.

You are myopic and unimportant, learn to live with it or not, either way
makes no difference to me.
Those undeniable facts won't change.

> Try putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with something other than your
> foot wedged firmly in your mouth.

Putting 2 and 2 together must then include adding your rubbish to the mix as
well. Can't wear that.
That math doesn't add up, dear boy.

>
> You're not very good at this whole 'logical argument' thing, are you
> ****wit?
>

You have no logic, especially when you try to subvert the point, abusive
one.
You lose.
Your credibilty goes out the window when you use such language and, getting
back to my original point, it shows that you are unballanced, argumentative
and unable to debate without using profanity.


> --
> Kwyj.
>

"Kwyjibo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> You're not very good at this whole 'logical argument' thing, are you
> ****wit?
>
> --
> Kwyj.

At least he has an original argument, rather than being the sad
Speed-wannabe like you..

"Alan Parkington" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
>
> "Kwyjibo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> You're not very good at this whole 'logical argument' thing, are you
>> ****wit?
>>
>> --
>> Kwyj.
>
> At least he has an original argument,

Pity it's as fatally flawed as your idiotic, pro-Telstra ramblings.

> rather than being the sad Speed-wannabe like you..

Not even close but, even it it were true, my posts are a lot more original
than your pathetic copy-and-paste from any source that appears even slightly
sympathetic to Telstra's cause.
Get back to me when a thought of your own manages to spawn from that empty,
melon shaped head of yours, Parkington.

--
Kwyj.

"Kwyjibo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> It's just footshot afte footshot from you.
>


Gee, wonder where you stole that line from? Get some original material,
buddy

"Alan Parkington" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Kwyjibo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> It's just footshot afte footshot from you.
>>
>
>
> Gee, wonder where you stole that line from?

Stole? I didn't know a word or phrase posted to usenet could be 'stolen'.
Maybe you'd better call the police if you believe a crime has been commited.

> Get some original material, buddy

That coming from Mr Copy&Paste?
Buy a dictionary (once you cash your dole cheque) and look up the word
'hypocrite'. There's probably a pretty good description of you in its
definition.

--
Kwyj.

"Kwyjibo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "-=Spudley=-" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Kwyjibo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> "-=Spudley=-" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>> "Kwyjibo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>
>>>>> "-=Spudley=-" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> Besides, myopic one, I inferred that taunts and profanity (abuse)
>>>>>> were the stock and trade of a person with poor and unbalanced
>>>>>> debating skills.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you admit you have poor and unbalanced debating skills.
>>>>> Thanks for clearing that up.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then you misread as usual.
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>>
>>>> No surprises there.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Your basic premise is that taunts and profanity are indicative of poor
>>> debating skills.
>>
>> Nope, you missed something right there.
>
> Did I?
>
>> "Taunts" was your introduced word into this conversation.
>
> Yep.
>
>> You fabricate stuff and then try to argue against me with your
>> misconception.
>
> Did I fabricate this?
> "I inferred that taunts and profanity (abuse) were the stock and trade of
> a person with poor and unbalanced debating skills."
>
> That's a direct quote from one of your posts you ****ing moron.
>

I said that I had inferred as much only after you introduced the word, you
silly boy, and it was in relation to your having poor and unballanced
debating skills due to not being able to have a debate without using
profanity (abuse). Tuants are another matter and although you don't seem to
be able to have a conversation without using them as well, it was none the
less an entry into the conversation that you originally introduced into
this, not I. It serves to detract from your abilty to debate in a balanced
unabusive, untaunting if you will, manner.
Which was my original point.


>>
>>> You made that point while at the same time attempting to taunt me with
>>> words such as 'myopic' and 'unimportant'
>>
>> That's where you go off the rails.
>>
>> You are myopic and unimportant, learn to live with it or not, either way
>> makes no difference to me.
>> Those undeniable facts won't change.
>>
>>> Try putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with something other than
>>> your foot wedged firmly in your mouth.
>>
>> Putting 2 and 2 together must then include adding your rubbish to the mix
>> as well. Can't wear that.
>> That math doesn't add up, dear boy.
>>
>>>
>>> You're not very good at this whole 'logical argument' thing, are you
>>> ****wit?
>>>
>>
>> You have no logic, especially when you try to subvert the point, abusive
>> one.
>
> ROFL.
> You really are as stupid as you seem, aren't you Spudley.
> You're so moronic, you can't even see the hypocricy in your own posts.
> It's just footshot afte footshot from you.
>
>> You lose.
>> Your credibilty goes out the window when you use such language and,
>> getting back to my original point, it shows that you are unballanced,
>> argumentative and unable to debate without using profanity.
>
> No - Your original point was that 'Balanced debate, means NOT calling
> people names like "lard arse and wanker" '. Now who's fabricating things?
> You can't even remember your own posts you useless retard.
>

Which only goes to show, that your comprehension skills are as appalling as
are your bad language skills.
Perhaps you don't relate words like "Lard arse", "wanker", "****wit",
"moron" and now "retard" as profanity. You silly boy.

You still lose because of it.
Adding more abuse doesn't strengthen your position one bit.


> --
> Kwyj.
>
>