Raj

"this conversation is happening because I call people seething or angry."

Wrong again Raj. This conversation is happening, about tone etc, because you posted angrily 'if you're wetting yourself to know about TOOR find it yourself'.

I've never seen someone get so much wrong in one night.

the article titles are not the key point. the key point is that it shows you commented on a thread about united. hence. you commented about united.

Ok so are you now admitting you posted article title as opposed to actual posts which would be a direct contradiction to what you said earlier?

Also raj you didn't prove anything as I never once said I didn't post about united, you simply posted some articles I posted on that suit your point, you didn't show the 100's if not over 1000 other articles I've posted on on a wide range of clubs, matters and sports (I posted plenty on boxing over the years as it's the other sport I follow closley)

Again I'll say to actually say I'm obsessed with united you would need to show a high ratio of posts about united in relation to all the other comments I've made over the years as I've never said I do not post about united cause I know I do, but obsessed? Well by very definition I would have to post about them all the time and certainly more then any other team / subject.

red man you might want to check the comments I copied from you earlier.

they are continual denial of you being angry and about how I cant read your tone.

oh dear red man. this really is falling apart for you isn't it?

are you trying to change the subject because you were wrong about tone?

kneerash I never said I posted the actual comment. I said I showed you commenting on united. and I did.

you think you are not obsessed about united and you quote your own definition.

fine. I think you are and I showed why.

it seems you are finally catching up.

you think you are not obsessed about united and you quote your own definition.

fine. I think you are and I showed why.
-----
I believe the deinition was found in a dictionary, does Raj have his own that he's wriiten?

Raj

"they are continual denial of you being angry and about how I cant read your tone."

and based on the content of those comments, along with your lack of ability to read tone. This is true.

Keep squirming Raj. Just face it, you've been owned.

Red

"I believe the deinition was found in a dictionary, does Raj have his own that he's wriiten?"

Probably. It's full of assumptions of the meanings of words.

er red man I think you'll find I said a long time ago I don't know the tone and only have an opinion.

you really have a problem with memory don't you!

the issue here is that you do not know the tone I am using.

and that's a fact.

yet because you don't like being wrong you continued to state that you do know the tone im using.

you really have cornered yourself!

Red man

I suppose if iin your opinion you assume his comments are showing tone of anger he'll accept it

Raj

Round in circles we go.

The content of my posts didn't suggest anger. You assumed I was angry and posted 'you're seething' a factual statement, not opinion.

The content of your posts do suggest anger, especially in proportion to a simple question being asked of you.

It's a good job you don't post whilst at school. You've got a lot to learn still, as evidenced by your circular flawed argument today.

Bad times Raj, bad times.

red man the content and your posting pattern suggested anger to me.

neither of us know the tone each other has used.

that's a fact.

do you understand that now or are you still struggling?

when I say you are seething its obviously a opinion. if I call you an idiot, is that a statement of fact too?

oh dear red man. you are a trier, but every argument you choose ends up with you losing badly.

good fun for me though.

actually, I remember red man doing this before.

he builds an opinion and because it seems logical to him, he cant understand that its only one opinion.

bless him.

This is what you posted earlier

secondly. you were slating people for constantly talking about suarez. i showed a lot of posts where you talk about united. some of them are positive but many of them are not.

Then you just posted this

I never said I posted the actual comment. I said I showed you commenting on united. and I did

------------

So Raj please explain how 1. You didn't say you posted the actual comment when you said "i showed a lot of posts where you talk about united"

I think we've already established the difference between a post and an article.

and 2. How can the article titles you posted in any way shape or form show this " some of them are positive but many of them are not. "

Are you now saying that you can tell the subject matter, tone, and positivity of individual posts from an article title?

See I said on this thread ages ago that I do post about united but many of them are positive so you are now trying to use what I said as your own words and then try to use this against me???

Also how do I quote my own definition when I posted the dictionary definition of the term, which when applied to this argument would mean that you would basically need to do what I've requested over and over again? Am I incorrect in that? If so please explain why I am and explain it how you conclude this?

ruined raj ruined

Kneerash

Raj will only come back with the old "its my opinion" a great way of killing a debate when your backed into a corner, thats in my opinion of cause

kneerash.

you misinterpreted me. i said i had shown you commenting on united and i believe i have.

you keep going on about articles. its not about that. those copy and pastes show you commenting on an article about united. hence you commented on united. yes?

why is that so hard for you to understand?



Are you now saying that you can tell the subject matter, tone, and positivity of individual posts from an article title?



nope. never said that.

i said you commented on united a lot. that's all.


oh dear kneerash. it appears you are trying to argue against something i didn't even say.

i bet you are seething at the moment.

seeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeething.

love it.

1




















2


























3





























Owned

Raj

you misinterpreted me. i said i had shown you commenting on united and i believe i have.
----
God you simpleton, Kneerash hasn't denied making posts about Utd, he's questioning your obsessed lable and you've yet to prove his obsession which is the norm for you, do keep up idiot

theresonlyonereds you didn't answer my question.

whats the matter?

owned!

love the fact that red has been here all night despite getting no replies.

if that's not owned, what is?

i am in complete control and i love it!

Big push tomorrow and it'll reach 3000 you freak.

Raj

love the fact that red has been here all night despite getting no replies.

if that's not owned, what is?

i am in complete control and i love it!
----------
Yeah ""no replies" because you cant argue with the truth.

Ah raj you've gone rounds so many bends we are back at the start you are now trying to say I misinterpreted you? no raj no you made a mistake you said something wrong and I pointed out your error. And now it's my fault that I took what you said the way you said it but you actually meant something else? You're re defining the English language now too?

And as you always do you go back to type and say I'm seething.

Like I said round in a big circle to the start of all this, you get shown up so you simply blame me for it and then say I'm angry.

I was right all along you're nothing but a wum, I've really "won" tonight and the last post I made shows this to be fact.

But of course as you do it's actually my fault for taking what you actually said when you meant something else and I'm angry.

Oh raj everyone sees it but you like twyin lannister said in game of thrones a king who keeps telling everyone he's king is no king at all. Kind of like you and your winning

Also raj if you are so adamant I misinterpreted you when you said you posted posts, me taking the literal meaning of the word post and how ot applies to a forumn, when in fact you meant articles I'd posted on why not just say you were wrong and you meant articles I'd commented on and not posts?

Raj wrong?! Stop the world!

I'll check in at some stage tomorrow raj, see what hair brained theory you come up with to avoid admitting you've made an error and were wrong.