Pete Wilkins said:
>
>
>>
> You're wasting your breath, or fingers. His mind is made up and
>> nothing will change it. A true food zealot.
>
 I know. :-/


-- 
kat
   >^..^<

Following up to kat 

>> You're wasting your breath, or fingers. His mind is made up and
>>> nothing will change it. A true food zealot.
>>
>  I know. :-/

is it me who has beliefs and ignores the experts via weak excuses or is it
you two?
-- 
Mike .......
Google-groups and excessive xposts killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove clothing to email

The Mike........... said:
> Following up to kat
>
>>> You're wasting your breath, or fingers. His mind is made up and
>>>> nothing will change it. A true food zealot.
>>>
>>  I know. :-/
>
> is it me who has beliefs and ignores the experts via weak excuses or
> is it you two?

I think you might be over reliant on their opinions and unwiling to accept 
that the food wasn't as bad as you and they seem to think.


-- 
kat
   >^..^<

Following up to kat 

> it me who has beliefs and ignores the experts via weak excuses or
>> is it you two?
> 
> I think you might be over reliant on their opinions and unwiling to accept 
> that the food wasn't as bad as you and they seem to think.

if i am you are way to quick to dismiss them
-- 
Mike .......
Google-groups and excessive xposts killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove clothing to email

Mike........... said:
> Following up to kat
>
>> it me who has beliefs and ignores the experts via weak excuses or
>>> is it you two?
>>
>> I think you might be over reliant on their opinions and unwiling to
>> accept that the food wasn't as bad as you and they seem to think.
>
> if i am you are way to quick to dismiss them

In the Beginning it was your statement that we ate nothing but meat and 2 
veg and it was dull, that I disputed.    as I could, because I didn't so the 
staement might apply to you but wasn't generally true.  You brought in these 
experts to prove you were right.  But as you weren't they couldn't be.   Or 
something. :-)


-- 
kat
   >^..^<

Following up to kat 

> You brought in these 
> experts to prove you were right.  But as you weren't they couldn't be.

classic.
-- 
Mike .......
Google-groups and excessive xposts killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove clothing to email

Following up to Mike........... 

>> You brought in these 
>> experts to prove you were right.  But as you weren't they couldn't be.
> 
> classic.

i will say that again, absolute classic
-- 
Mike .......
Google-groups and excessive xposts killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove clothing to email

Mike........... said:
> Following up to kat
>
>> You brought in these
>> experts to prove you were right.  But as you weren't they couldn't
>> be.
>
> classic.

Thankyou. ;-)


-- 
kat
   >^..^<

Mike........... said:
> Following up to Mike...........
>
>>> You brought in these
>>> experts to prove you were right.  But as you weren't they couldn't
>>> be.
>>
>> classic.
>
> i will say that again, absolute classic

I will say again, thankyou. ;-)


-- 
kat
   >^..^<

"Mike..........."  wrote in message 
news:rpso78m3d8js$.16z2vz7j5taqj$.dlg@40tude.net...
> Following up to Mike...........
>
>>> You brought in these
>>> experts to prove you were right.  But as you weren't they couldn't be.
>>
>> classic.
>
> i will say that again, absolute classic

And I will say again, if selective snipping is the only way you think you can 
win an argument you forget one thing: *you* may think you have won *that* 
single point you have so carefully snipped and replied to but there are a few 
others watching your little game who are probably not fooled by it.

So how about stepping up to the plate and answering the actual point she made?

"In the Beginning it was your statement that we ate nothing but meat and 2
veg and it was dull, that I disputed.    as I could, because I didn't so the
staement might apply to you but wasn't generally true. "

*You* said we ate nothing but meat & 2 veg which was dull and boring.

We said we ate no such thing.

How about a straight answer to a couple of straight questions: Was that not 
your initial summary of English food in days gone by?

Further: Do you still refuse to accept that not *all* English food was 
produced to the execrable standard you were unfortunate enough to suffer?

Stop wriggling. Stop spinning.

-- 
Pete

Following up to Pete Wilkins 

>>>> You brought in these
>>>> experts to prove you were right.  But as you weren't they couldn't be.
>>>
>>> classic.
>>
>> i will say that again, absolute classic
> 
> And I will say again, if selective snipping is the only way you think you can 
> win an argument

I will say again the correct accelted way to post to usenet is to quote the
part you are replying to, not the whole post. That leads of reams of
rubbish, the original post is still there to read.

>Stop wriggling. Stop spinning.

I'm neither wriggling or spinning, I have commented on the only new content
in that post. We have gone over the meat and two veg element a dozen times,
I have given you many quotes as to how it was the mainstay of the british
diet, you choose to ignore them, i am not about to repeat it every time on
eof you repeats the same question.
-- 
Mike .......
Google-groups and excessive xposts killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove clothing to email

"Mike..........."  wrote in message 
news:12k0hqrt0u4i3.131i001ce4icn.dlg@40tude.net...
>
> I will say again the correct accelted way to post to usenet is to quote the
> part you are replying to, not the whole post. That leads of reams of
> rubbish, the original post is still there to read.

Therefore it is safe to assume that you are in complete accord with the parts 
of the posts you are deleting and not replying to, even when they contain 
questions or statements disputing *your* position on a subject, and that you 
have no argument with them.

Thank you for clearing the air on this matter. I can now understand you more 
clearly and had failed to realise I had persuaded you so long ago how wrong 
you were on so many different points, hence your inability to answer them. I 
shall also feel free to add footnotes pointing out that your silence seems to 
equal acceptance, just to keep the record straight.

-- 
Pete

Following up to Pete Wilkins 

>> I will say again the correct accelted way to post to usenet is to quote the
>> part you are replying to, not the whole post. That leads of reams of
>> rubbish, the original post is still there to read.
> 
> Therefore it is safe to assume that you are in complete accord with the parts 
> of the posts you are deleting and not replying to

no, because i have already made my position clear elsewhere. Replies are to
the quoted text, there is nothing else implied.
-- 
Mike .......
Google-groups and excessive xposts killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove clothing to email

"Mike..........."  wrote in message
news:1mfq4pvdbklsr.72pt2lqhfqqn$.dlg@40tude.net...
> Following up to Pete Wilkins
>
>>> I will say again the correct accelted way to post to usenet is to quote
>>> the
>>> part you are replying to, not the whole post. That leads of reams of
>>> rubbish, the original post is still there to read.
>>
>> Therefore it is safe to assume that you are in complete accord with the
>> parts
>> of the posts you are deleting and not replying to
>
> no, because i have already made my position clear elsewhere. Replies are to
> the quoted text, there is nothing else implied.

Your position is as clear as the mud you fling round when you claim the wrong
person said something, or you even claim things were said which never were, or
your quotes attribute someone else's words to another poster. Thank goodness
it is only words on a screen, for you could prove a most dangerous person to
have any real dealings with going by your posts which I have seen.

-- 
Pete

Following up to Pete Wilkins 

> Your position is as clear as the mud you fling round when you claim the wrong
> person said something, 

there are three of you to one of me, i am bound to not remember which of
you said exactly which erroneous thing, I am replying to the sense of the
general argument and have often said "you two" or "you three".

>or you even claim things were said which never were, or
> your quotes attribute someone else's words to another poster. Thank goodness
> it is only words on a screen, for you could prove a most dangerous person to
> have any real dealings with going by your posts which I have seen.

I dont think so, I'm not angry , im not insulting you, we would have a
great argument over several pints and laugh at the end.
-- 
Mike .......
Google-groups and excessive xposts killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove clothing to email

Mike........... said:

>
> I will say again the correct accelted way to post to usenet is to
> quote the part you are replying to, not the whole post.

Selective quoting can mislead!


-- 
kat
   >^..^<