Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:59 pm
Peter King is the dogs wrote:So if there is no smaller part of 100% then by definition there can be no larger part! There is just the total part!
Fri Jan 17, 2014 11:00 pm
CjBluebird17 wrote:
And he's meant to be this genius statistician
Fri Jan 17, 2014 11:00 pm
Fri Jan 17, 2014 11:01 pm
Fri Jan 17, 2014 11:01 pm
murphy wrote:64JACK wrote:murphy wrote:64JACK wrote:murphy wrote:No, we are cardiff city and want to stay that way. You may would be happy for your club to be renamed Swansea jacks, but would Liverpool FC like to become Liverpool scousers, or would Newcastle like to be Newcastle Geordies, would they f**k. We don't want be cardiff bluebirds or Cardiff dragons. Are you too stupid to understand that!
As I told you earlier in the thread Murphy, there is nothing rigid about a nickname being added. It would obviously be Newcastle Magpies or Liverpool reds, I used Swansea Jacks as Swansea Swans would be rather silly wouldn't it? But hey, never mind. rebrand paranoia has obviously set in with you!
Jacks is nothing to do with Swansea city. Your nickname is the swans. If all clubs were to be rebranded to our nicknames that's what you would be called.
Why is Jacks nothing to do with Swansea City? Swansea City is in Swansea, and people from Swansea are known as the Jacks!![]()
Oh I get it now. You don't like it that we are called the Jacks do you Murphy? It puts us in the category whereby we have another identity like scousers, Brummies, Cockneys and Geordies! Cardiff doesn't have that does it? And you don't like it! Thats why your being so rigid isn't it! My god! You really do hate us don't you!
Your calling yourself the jacks where as your club nickname is the swans. I doubt very much a Liverpool fan fron croxteth would refer to his team as the scousers
Fri Jan 17, 2014 11:02 pm
Peter King is the dogs wrote:You are wrong! Just admit it! It won't hurt! You are just not as smart as you think you are! Found out, exposed as a total bullshitter!
Fri Jan 17, 2014 11:04 pm
Fri Jan 17, 2014 11:05 pm
Fri Jan 17, 2014 11:06 pm
Peter King is the dogs wrote:I'm not trying to get your attention. I'm showing quite categorically that you are incorrect! Just as you are over what names I use!
Fri Jan 17, 2014 11:07 pm
Peter King is the dogs wrote:How is the large part and 100% ?the same? Are you that stupid?
Fri Jan 17, 2014 11:08 pm
Fri Jan 17, 2014 11:09 pm
Peter King is the dogs wrote:I never agreed with you because you were incorrect and I was right! Get your own picture on here bright boy! Or is tickets down your fiancé's top tasteful or cheap!
Fri Jan 17, 2014 11:10 pm
Fri Jan 17, 2014 11:11 pm
Castro wrote:Peter King is the dogs wrote:How is the large part and 100% ?the same? Are you that stupid?
I didnt say the large part, i said a large part. 100% is a pretty large part![]()
why is a "large part" of your posting history (99% when we last checked over 450 posts) about or to Roathie, Martyn?
Fri Jan 17, 2014 11:11 pm
Fri Jan 17, 2014 11:12 pm
Fri Jan 17, 2014 11:12 pm
Peter King is the dogs wrote:Whoever mental Martyn is, I think he didn't ask you to do that? Why would he?
You are getting desperate all because you have been proved to be incorrect!
Fri Jan 17, 2014 11:13 pm
Fri Jan 17, 2014 11:13 pm
JB39. wrote:
Wrong.
100% is not large.
100% is whole.
If you're talking about the whole of the solar system you are talking about 100% of it. If you're talking about a large percent of it then you're not talking about 100% of it.
Large != Whole.
Good grief.
Fri Jan 17, 2014 11:14 pm
Peter King is the dogs wrote:I have no idea what you are talking about? Can you show me the thread where this fictional person requested this?
Fri Jan 17, 2014 11:14 pm
Fri Jan 17, 2014 11:15 pm
Castro wrote:You take this internet too seriously
Fri Jan 17, 2014 11:15 pm
Fri Jan 17, 2014 11:16 pm
Fri Jan 17, 2014 11:16 pm
Fri Jan 17, 2014 11:17 pm
Peter King is the dogs wrote:Show me the thread!
Fri Jan 17, 2014 11:17 pm
Peter King is the dogs wrote:Does he take the whole internet too seriously?
Fri Jan 17, 2014 11:19 pm
Peter King is the dogs wrote:I never agreed with you because you were incorrect and I was right! Get your own picture on here bright boy! Or is tickets down your fiancé's top tasteful or cheap!
Fri Jan 17, 2014 11:20 pm
Fri Jan 17, 2014 11:21 pm
64JACK wrote:Peter King is the dogs wrote:I never agreed with you because you were incorrect and I was right! Get your own picture on here bright boy! Or is tickets down your fiancé's top tasteful or cheap!
Surely by stating 'tickets down his fiances top' is an admission on your behalf that he is telling the truth?