"In that initial example there was no mention of who started the conversation."
That's the point you utter moron.
'Engage with' doesn't mean 'start the conversation'.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 second ago
Fields, it's really quite clear how fuming you are now.
You'll deny it, of course. But seriously, you look a total mess.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Like you denied fuming over Ripley’s comments last night. Have I reached the same level as you last night? Nope.
How long before you filter/complain to Admins/threaten to go the bizzies?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just by writing this post, it shows what a mess you're in.
Scrapping around for any insult that you can find - bring mental health into it.. you're angry and it really shows.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just bringing up your hypocrisy. Going on about others getting angry when you lost your rag big time last night with Ripley’s.
You’ve shat the bed here. Best to move on or go and run your pretend business.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 29 seconds ago
"In that initial example there was no mention of who started the conversation."
That's the point you utter moron.
'Engage with' doesn't mean 'start the conversation'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Except in the dictionary definitions posted. But what do they know. Winston with his superior intellect knows better
You’re so stubborn you’re even calling the dictionary out as being wrong
Mental
"Except in the dictionary definitions posted."
Nope. The one you posted talks about starting a fight
Listen, you can engage someone in conversation i.e. starting a conversation.
But that does not mean that 'engage with' exclusively means starting a conversation.
I cannot believe that in over 24 hours you still don't understand.
As I said, I honestly think a 7 year old would get it.
You do realise that there are two definitions on that link, right?
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 second ago
Fields, it's really quite clear how fuming you are now.
You'll deny it, of course. But seriously, you look a total mess.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Like you denied fuming over Ripley’s comments last night. Have I reached the same level as you last night? Nope.
How long before you filter/complain to Admins/threaten to go the bizzies?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just by writing this post, it shows what a mess you're in.
Scrapping around for any insult that you can find - bring mental health into it.. you're angry and it really shows.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just bringing up your hypocrisy. Going on about others getting angry when you lost your rag big time last night with Ripley’s.
You’ve shat the bed here. Best to move on or go and run your pretend business.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What's hypocritical about pointing out that you're angry, having got angry myself at some stage?
“ Listen, you can engage someone in conversation i.e. starting a conversation.”
Finally he gets it
“ But that does not mean that 'engage with' exclusively means starting a conversation.”
When have I said it does?
Yep only took 24 hours, of which you were on here for most of it, for you to admit engaging someone can also mean starting a conversation.
Finally we can move on
Rules to note:
If you've ever been angry in your life, you're not permitted to point out when someone is angry.
Noted.
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 20 seconds ago
“ Listen, you can engage someone in conversation i.e. starting a conversation.”
Finally he gets it
“ But that does not mean that 'engage with' exclusively means starting a conversation.”
When have I said it does?
Yep only took 24 hours, of which you were on here for most of it, for you to admit engaging someone can also mean starting a conversation.
Finally we can move on
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've been saying this all along ffs.
Where have you said it does?
This all started because you said that this means I was saying you'd started the conversation:
"no desire to engage in football discussion with me but want to engage with me on here"
You're now admitting it doesn't, right?
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 27 seconds ago
Rules to note:
If you've ever been angry in your life, you're not permitted to point out when someone is angry.
Noted.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where did I say that you thick caaant?
The hypocrisy is you’re saying I’m angry, I’m not, as a usual Winston tactic. Seen you do it loads. Thing is you were actually angry for no good reason last night and you lashed out. You showed your true colours last night.
Considering you take the moral high ground it’s hypocritical you treating Ripley’s the way you did.
"You’re too thick to realise that engaging in conversation means starting a conversation with someone."
(But that does not mean that 'engage with' exclusively means starting a conversation.)
"When have I said it does?"
What is going on here?
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 27 seconds ago
Rules to note:
If you've ever been angry in your life, you're not permitted to point out when someone is angry.
Noted.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where did I say that you thick caaant?
The hypocrisy is you’re saying I’m angry, I’m not, as a usual Winston tactic. Seen you do it loads. Thing is you were actually angry for no good reason last night and you lashed out. You showed your true colours last night.
Considering you take the moral high ground it’s hypocritical you treating Ripley’s the way you did.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How is it hypocritical to say you're angry?
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 27 seconds ago
"You’re too thick to realise that engaging in conversation means starting a conversation with someone."
(But that does not mean that 'engage with' exclusively means starting a conversation.)
"When have I said it does?"
What is going on here?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Did I mention exclusively there?
Erm no
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 27 seconds ago
Rules to note:
If you've ever been angry in your life, you're not permitted to point out when someone is angry.
Noted.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where did I say that you thick caaant?
The hypocrisy is you’re saying I’m angry, I’m not, as a usual Winston tactic. Seen you do it loads. Thing is you were actually angry for no good reason last night and you lashed out. You showed your true colours last night.
Considering you take the moral high ground it’s hypocritical you treating Ripley’s the way you did.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How is it hypocritical to say you're angry?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I explained this. Read it again
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 2 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 27 seconds ago
"You’re too thick to realise that engaging in conversation means starting a conversation with someone."
(But that does not mean that 'engage with' exclusively means starting a conversation.)
"When have I said it does?"
What is going on here?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Did I mention exclusively there?
Erm no
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"You’re too thick to realise that engaging in conversation means starting a conversation with someone."
Is that your best comeback?
Fields, you're a mess. You've gone around in circles so much you can't even remember what you've posted.
You called me thick for apparently not realising that engaging in conversation means starting a conversation, and now you're accepting that it doesn't necessarily mean that.
Not to mention that the whole reason this started is because of that very thing.
You absolute muppet.
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 27 seconds ago
Rules to note:
If you've ever been angry in your life, you're not permitted to point out when someone is angry.
Noted.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where did I say that you thick caaant?
The hypocrisy is you’re saying I’m angry, I’m not, as a usual Winston tactic. Seen you do it loads. Thing is you were actually angry for no good reason last night and you lashed out. You showed your true colours last night.
Considering you take the moral high ground it’s hypocritical you treating Ripley’s the way you did.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How is it hypocritical to say you're angry?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I explained this. Read it again
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No you haven't.
Okay, let's just get Fields into his corner:
This all started because you said that this means I was saying you'd started the conversation:
"no desire to engage in football discussion with me but want to engage with me on here"
You're now admitting it doesn't, right?
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 25 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 2 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 27 seconds ago
"You’re too thick to realise that engaging in conversation means starting a conversation with someone."
(But that does not mean that 'engage with' exclusively means starting a conversation.)
"When have I said it does?"
What is going on here?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Did I mention exclusively there?
Erm no
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"You’re too thick to realise that engaging in conversation means starting a conversation with someone."
Is that your best comeback?
Fields, you're a mess. You've gone around in circles so much you can't even remember what you've posted.
You called me thick for apparently not realising that engaging in conversation means starting a conversation, and now you're accepting that it doesn't necessarily mean that.
Not to mention that the whole reason this started is because of that very thing.
You absolute muppet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where in that sentence did I say it exclusively means that?
I didn’t say it doesn’t necessarily mean that. Another Winston tactic. Putting words into people’s mouths.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 27 seconds ago
Rules to note:
If you've ever been angry in your life, you're not permitted to point out when someone is angry.
Noted.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where did I say that you thick caaant?
The hypocrisy is you’re saying I’m angry, I’m not, as a usual Winston tactic. Seen you do it loads. Thing is you were actually angry for no good reason last night and you lashed out. You showed your true colours last night.
Considering you take the moral high ground it’s hypocritical you treating Ripley’s the way you did.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How is it hypocritical to say you're angry?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I explained this. Read it again
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No you haven't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes I did
"Where in that sentence did I say it exclusively means that?"
Well the implication is clear, isn't it. Otherwise I wouldn't be 'thick' for believing it means something else, would I?
You can't get out of this.
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 23 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 27 seconds ago
Rules to note:
If you've ever been angry in your life, you're not permitted to point out when someone is angry.
Noted.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where did I say that you thick caaant?
The hypocrisy is you’re saying I’m angry, I’m not, as a usual Winston tactic. Seen you do it loads. Thing is you were actually angry for no good reason last night and you lashed out. You showed your true colours last night.
Considering you take the moral high ground it’s hypocritical you treating Ripley’s the way you did.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How is it hypocritical to say you're angry?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I explained this. Read it again
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No you haven't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes I did
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No you haven't.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
Okay, let's just get Fields into his corner:
This all started because you said that this means I was saying you'd started the conversation:
"no desire to engage in football discussion with me but want to engage with me on here"
You're now admitting it doesn't, right?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Waiting for an answer.
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 4 hours, 43 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 49 seconds ago
Revisionism?
Nope.
Just the fact that you didn't realise that you can be engaging in conversation without starting the conversation.
You looked like a prat tbh.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No idiot. You’re too thick to realise that engaging in conversation means starting a conversation with someone.
Filtered anyone recently?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh and here it is. The post that proves the point.
Game, set and match.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
Okay, let's just get Fields into his corner:
This all started because you said that this means I was saying you'd started the conversation:
"no desire to engage in football discussion with me but want to engage with me on here"
You're now admitting it doesn't, right?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You engaged in the conversation with me;
“engage someone in conversationto start having a conversation with someone”.
Not the other way round thick caaant. I feel for your pretend employees.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 8 minutes ago
"Where in that sentence did I say it exclusively means that?"
Well the implication is clear, isn't it. Otherwise I wouldn't be 'thick' for believing it means something else, would I?
You can't get out of this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ahhhh your favourite word, implied
Maybe read what people type and not what you think people type you thick caaant
Graeme...are you ok ?
Page 64 of 68
64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68
posted on 18/2/20
"In that initial example there was no mention of who started the conversation."
That's the point you utter moron.
'Engage with' doesn't mean 'start the conversation'.
posted on 18/2/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 second ago
Fields, it's really quite clear how fuming you are now.
You'll deny it, of course. But seriously, you look a total mess.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Like you denied fuming over Ripley’s comments last night. Have I reached the same level as you last night? Nope.
How long before you filter/complain to Admins/threaten to go the bizzies?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just by writing this post, it shows what a mess you're in.
Scrapping around for any insult that you can find - bring mental health into it.. you're angry and it really shows.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just bringing up your hypocrisy. Going on about others getting angry when you lost your rag big time last night with Ripley’s.
You’ve shat the bed here. Best to move on or go and run your pretend business.
posted on 18/2/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 29 seconds ago
"In that initial example there was no mention of who started the conversation."
That's the point you utter moron.
'Engage with' doesn't mean 'start the conversation'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Except in the dictionary definitions posted. But what do they know. Winston with his superior intellect knows better
You’re so stubborn you’re even calling the dictionary out as being wrong
Mental
posted on 18/2/20
"Except in the dictionary definitions posted."
Nope. The one you posted talks about starting a fight
Listen, you can engage someone in conversation i.e. starting a conversation.
But that does not mean that 'engage with' exclusively means starting a conversation.
I cannot believe that in over 24 hours you still don't understand.
As I said, I honestly think a 7 year old would get it.
posted on 18/2/20
You do realise that there are two definitions on that link, right?
posted on 18/2/20
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 second ago
Fields, it's really quite clear how fuming you are now.
You'll deny it, of course. But seriously, you look a total mess.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Like you denied fuming over Ripley’s comments last night. Have I reached the same level as you last night? Nope.
How long before you filter/complain to Admins/threaten to go the bizzies?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just by writing this post, it shows what a mess you're in.
Scrapping around for any insult that you can find - bring mental health into it.. you're angry and it really shows.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just bringing up your hypocrisy. Going on about others getting angry when you lost your rag big time last night with Ripley’s.
You’ve shat the bed here. Best to move on or go and run your pretend business.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What's hypocritical about pointing out that you're angry, having got angry myself at some stage?
posted on 18/2/20
“ Listen, you can engage someone in conversation i.e. starting a conversation.”
Finally he gets it
“ But that does not mean that 'engage with' exclusively means starting a conversation.”
When have I said it does?
Yep only took 24 hours, of which you were on here for most of it, for you to admit engaging someone can also mean starting a conversation.
Finally we can move on
posted on 18/2/20
Rules to note:
If you've ever been angry in your life, you're not permitted to point out when someone is angry.
Noted.
posted on 18/2/20
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 20 seconds ago
“ Listen, you can engage someone in conversation i.e. starting a conversation.”
Finally he gets it
“ But that does not mean that 'engage with' exclusively means starting a conversation.”
When have I said it does?
Yep only took 24 hours, of which you were on here for most of it, for you to admit engaging someone can also mean starting a conversation.
Finally we can move on
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've been saying this all along ffs.
Where have you said it does?
This all started because you said that this means I was saying you'd started the conversation:
"no desire to engage in football discussion with me but want to engage with me on here"
You're now admitting it doesn't, right?
posted on 18/2/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 27 seconds ago
Rules to note:
If you've ever been angry in your life, you're not permitted to point out when someone is angry.
Noted.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where did I say that you thick caaant?
The hypocrisy is you’re saying I’m angry, I’m not, as a usual Winston tactic. Seen you do it loads. Thing is you were actually angry for no good reason last night and you lashed out. You showed your true colours last night.
Considering you take the moral high ground it’s hypocritical you treating Ripley’s the way you did.
posted on 18/2/20
"You’re too thick to realise that engaging in conversation means starting a conversation with someone."
(But that does not mean that 'engage with' exclusively means starting a conversation.)
"When have I said it does?"
What is going on here?
posted on 18/2/20
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 27 seconds ago
Rules to note:
If you've ever been angry in your life, you're not permitted to point out when someone is angry.
Noted.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where did I say that you thick caaant?
The hypocrisy is you’re saying I’m angry, I’m not, as a usual Winston tactic. Seen you do it loads. Thing is you were actually angry for no good reason last night and you lashed out. You showed your true colours last night.
Considering you take the moral high ground it’s hypocritical you treating Ripley’s the way you did.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How is it hypocritical to say you're angry?
posted on 18/2/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 27 seconds ago
"You’re too thick to realise that engaging in conversation means starting a conversation with someone."
(But that does not mean that 'engage with' exclusively means starting a conversation.)
"When have I said it does?"
What is going on here?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Did I mention exclusively there?
Erm no
posted on 18/2/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 27 seconds ago
Rules to note:
If you've ever been angry in your life, you're not permitted to point out when someone is angry.
Noted.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where did I say that you thick caaant?
The hypocrisy is you’re saying I’m angry, I’m not, as a usual Winston tactic. Seen you do it loads. Thing is you were actually angry for no good reason last night and you lashed out. You showed your true colours last night.
Considering you take the moral high ground it’s hypocritical you treating Ripley’s the way you did.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How is it hypocritical to say you're angry?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I explained this. Read it again
posted on 18/2/20
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 2 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 27 seconds ago
"You’re too thick to realise that engaging in conversation means starting a conversation with someone."
(But that does not mean that 'engage with' exclusively means starting a conversation.)
"When have I said it does?"
What is going on here?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Did I mention exclusively there?
Erm no
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"You’re too thick to realise that engaging in conversation means starting a conversation with someone."
Is that your best comeback?
Fields, you're a mess. You've gone around in circles so much you can't even remember what you've posted.
You called me thick for apparently not realising that engaging in conversation means starting a conversation, and now you're accepting that it doesn't necessarily mean that.
Not to mention that the whole reason this started is because of that very thing.
You absolute muppet.
posted on 18/2/20
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 27 seconds ago
Rules to note:
If you've ever been angry in your life, you're not permitted to point out when someone is angry.
Noted.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where did I say that you thick caaant?
The hypocrisy is you’re saying I’m angry, I’m not, as a usual Winston tactic. Seen you do it loads. Thing is you were actually angry for no good reason last night and you lashed out. You showed your true colours last night.
Considering you take the moral high ground it’s hypocritical you treating Ripley’s the way you did.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How is it hypocritical to say you're angry?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I explained this. Read it again
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No you haven't.
posted on 18/2/20
Okay, let's just get Fields into his corner:
This all started because you said that this means I was saying you'd started the conversation:
"no desire to engage in football discussion with me but want to engage with me on here"
You're now admitting it doesn't, right?
posted on 18/2/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 25 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 2 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 27 seconds ago
"You’re too thick to realise that engaging in conversation means starting a conversation with someone."
(But that does not mean that 'engage with' exclusively means starting a conversation.)
"When have I said it does?"
What is going on here?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Did I mention exclusively there?
Erm no
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"You’re too thick to realise that engaging in conversation means starting a conversation with someone."
Is that your best comeback?
Fields, you're a mess. You've gone around in circles so much you can't even remember what you've posted.
You called me thick for apparently not realising that engaging in conversation means starting a conversation, and now you're accepting that it doesn't necessarily mean that.
Not to mention that the whole reason this started is because of that very thing.
You absolute muppet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where in that sentence did I say it exclusively means that?
I didn’t say it doesn’t necessarily mean that. Another Winston tactic. Putting words into people’s mouths.
posted on 18/2/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 27 seconds ago
Rules to note:
If you've ever been angry in your life, you're not permitted to point out when someone is angry.
Noted.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where did I say that you thick caaant?
The hypocrisy is you’re saying I’m angry, I’m not, as a usual Winston tactic. Seen you do it loads. Thing is you were actually angry for no good reason last night and you lashed out. You showed your true colours last night.
Considering you take the moral high ground it’s hypocritical you treating Ripley’s the way you did.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How is it hypocritical to say you're angry?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I explained this. Read it again
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No you haven't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes I did
posted on 18/2/20
"Where in that sentence did I say it exclusively means that?"
Well the implication is clear, isn't it. Otherwise I wouldn't be 'thick' for believing it means something else, would I?
You can't get out of this.
posted on 18/2/20
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 23 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 27 seconds ago
Rules to note:
If you've ever been angry in your life, you're not permitted to point out when someone is angry.
Noted.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where did I say that you thick caaant?
The hypocrisy is you’re saying I’m angry, I’m not, as a usual Winston tactic. Seen you do it loads. Thing is you were actually angry for no good reason last night and you lashed out. You showed your true colours last night.
Considering you take the moral high ground it’s hypocritical you treating Ripley’s the way you did.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How is it hypocritical to say you're angry?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I explained this. Read it again
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No you haven't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes I did
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No you haven't.
posted on 18/2/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
Okay, let's just get Fields into his corner:
This all started because you said that this means I was saying you'd started the conversation:
"no desire to engage in football discussion with me but want to engage with me on here"
You're now admitting it doesn't, right?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Waiting for an answer.
posted on 18/2/20
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 4 hours, 43 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 49 seconds ago
Revisionism?
Nope.
Just the fact that you didn't realise that you can be engaging in conversation without starting the conversation.
You looked like a prat tbh.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No idiot. You’re too thick to realise that engaging in conversation means starting a conversation with someone.
Filtered anyone recently?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh and here it is. The post that proves the point.
Game, set and match.
posted on 18/2/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
Okay, let's just get Fields into his corner:
This all started because you said that this means I was saying you'd started the conversation:
"no desire to engage in football discussion with me but want to engage with me on here"
You're now admitting it doesn't, right?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You engaged in the conversation with me;
“engage someone in conversationto start having a conversation with someone”.
Not the other way round thick caaant. I feel for your pretend employees.
posted on 18/2/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 8 minutes ago
"Where in that sentence did I say it exclusively means that?"
Well the implication is clear, isn't it. Otherwise I wouldn't be 'thick' for believing it means something else, would I?
You can't get out of this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ahhhh your favourite word, implied
Maybe read what people type and not what you think people type you thick caaant
Page 64 of 68
64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68