egafd.com

Yes Sam, you are indeed the winner, because no-one else gives a fuck. Feels good doesn't it?

Sam Slater wrote:


>
> See my last post but one to you. It takes two to tango. You
> care enough to reply.
>

Not any more I don't.

Sam: For the record, you really are the only person in the world who cares about this, because I certainly don't. As for all your rather over the top talk of "enemies" and the like, do calm down. This is meant to be a discussion forum. You have not been "accused" of anything other than linking to an ...

Sam: You didn't wind me up at all. Indeed, I deliberately did not even begin to discuss the gun control issue because I know there is no point. You have wound yourself up over whether something is "true" or "objectively true", and I think it should be clear by now that I think you are being ...

dave756 wrote: > It seems the right to bare arms is seen by so many Americans as > being firmly a right given via the Constitution which reads: > > "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a > free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, > shall not be infringed ...

Sam Slater wrote: > Friendly discussion? What's friendly about falsely accusing > people of something they didn't do and then call them a pedant > when they show they're innocent? > > You either have the cheek of the devil or you're winding me up. > I wish I was winding you up, because it seems ...

I think my mistake was to try and have a friendly discussion with you. I will try not to make that one again.

Sam: I have met a few self important pedants in my time, but I doff my hat to you, you take the prize. You seem to think a comment on a blog is a supreme affront to your dignity. Please feel free to be offended. The only point I was ever trying to make was that you agreed with that article because ...

Sam Slater wrote: > Robches, you're mad. The only one tying himself in knots is > you. > > I'll ask you again: Do you know the difference between > believing something as true and presenting something as a fact > to others? > > Yes or no. > > If you do not know the difference, I'll be happy to ...

Sam Slater wrote: > But my agreeing with it (broadly) doesn't mean I said it was > factual. > I don't see why you are having such a problem with this. Do you think the facts presented in the article are wrong? I doubt it, or else why link to it? You are tying yourself up in knots over something ...