you think you know because you have made a logical assumption.

but you don't know for sure.
----
But it'll depend on the circumstances whether or not you have to assume or not.

But you are sat with a group of guys and you make a assumption but you dont know they all understood and thats a fact

theres a difference between enjoying owning you and caring about being believed.

do keep up robin.

Really? Surely the two are synonymous as if I, or anyone at all for that matter, believed you your enjoyment would cease.

no it wont red.

itll depend on whether you have proof.

something can be obvious and still be an assumption.

as I said. we are now at the point where you understand but cant admit it.

that's a fun stage. one of my favourites.

theyre completely different robin.

I would say nice try. but it wasn't.

So if you take your logic then your claim of they all understood is wrong, because you dont know for sure what each and everyone was thinking

They may be different but they are synonymous. You cannot have one without the other.

we are now at the point where you understand but cant admit it.

that's a fun stage. one of my favourites.

Raj

Why don't you just tell us the game that the Lino was involved in?

no red. it means my claim is based on an assumption that I made.

just like I said to you several posts ago.

this isn't particularly difficult red.

no robin. theyre not.

they aren't even close.

statman why are we going round in circles.

theres no chance I will be revealing details about who the guy is and I am sure you understood that back at that start.

comment by Raj (U17528)
posted 3 minutes ago
statman why are we going round in circles.

theres no chance I will be revealing details about who the guy is and I am sure you understood that back at that start.
--------------

So you know which game it was, but you won't tell us?

im not entirely sure. I could find out with minimal investigation as I know some details.

I see what you are trying to do now. you are trying to make me contradict something that I said pages and pages ago.

how sad.

comment by Raj (U17528)
posted 1 minute ago
im not entirely sure. I could find out with minimal investigation as I know some details.

I see what you are trying to do now. you are trying to make me contradict something that I said pages and pages ago.

how sad.
------------

I find it strange that you able to recall minute details about the lad that played in the World Cup fixture, including peoples reactions, but can't even recall the game that the Lino was involved in.

you go ahead and find it strange.

the idea that if you remember some detail from one thing means you must remember detail from everything in your life is a bit silly.

and im not really sure what the point is?

you keep telling me you don't believe me. but that isn't going to change what I think, remember or know is it?

Raj

reverting to assuming what you believe people to be thinking without any proof and to use that as main basis for your argument sums up how desperate you are.

All we can do is go by what we've read and to be honest the more i read the more a liar i assume you to be, yeah i dont have the proof but thats my opinion.


Now you've been found out will you spend more time with your imaginary wife?

How do you know the guy officiated in the World Cup if you don't know the game? Did he just tell you he did?

TOOR

Raj could of assumed those guys took part in the world cup

Raj, the div that keeps on giving.

He's told that many lies he's tied himself in knots and can't keep up with himself.

comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721) posted 14 hours, 11 minutes ago
How do you know the guy officiated in the World Cup if you don't know the game? Did he just tell you he did?
---------------------------

Seems to be a case of Raj assumed and therefore it is fact. That's how he works apparently and that's not an assumption..... he wrote it above thing that it has some kind of credence!

Weird weird guy.

Has raj the filthy rag been owning again?

If someone I knew ran the line in a World Cup match I would definitely know who played
Perhaps Raj wants to enter the murky world of politics where talking shiite is accepted as the norm

oh look - they're all out in force!

so many simpletons in one place. rather funny.

red. the car example showed you that its possible to make an assumption that you're sure of. that's obvious.

that's what I did with the conversation.

nothing wrong with that and I never claimed otherwise.

let me know if you need it explained for the 10th time.

I see theresonlyonereds is back. still going on about lies.

yet everything I have said has been consistent. because its the truth.

I guess this is the guy that got drunk and emailed the administrators of a football forum because id upset him.

robin. no assumption. it was a world cup game and it was a long time ago.

I remember who the home side were but not sure on the away side.

I could easily find out by why would I? to satisfy the questions of a seething mess on a forum?

yeh right.