Sir Noel- announcement on Wednesday 6th July

Forum for fans of Noel Gallagher's solo work

Sir Noel- announcement on Wednesday 6th July

Postby Greg House » 15 Jul 2011, 11:03

blacknitecrash wrote:
Greg House wrote:Well, there's the difference between you and I: I have the tools to answer questions when asked, whereas you just ignore them.

(Burn) :lol:


But you didn't ask any questions did you?? (save for rhetorical ones). Look again. :lol:

The other difference is I wouldn't spend half hour on a reply just to prove to myself I'm clever. :lol:

Clown shoes son, you are clown shoes. :lol:


They're only rhetorical if you agree with them. If you disagree, then they're questions that you have to answer to counter me. This really isn't rocket science. :lol:

Nah, you only spend *checks time/date stamps* a third of the time on a reply 5-10% as long to try and achieve the same effect. That's obviously totally different. :lol: :lol:
User avatar
Greg House
R'Kid
 
Posts: 6245
Joined: 13 Aug 2008, 10:59

Sir Noel- announcement on Wednesday 6th July

Postby blacknitecrash » 15 Jul 2011, 11:13

Greg House wrote:
blacknitecrash wrote:
Greg House wrote:Well, there's the difference between you and I: I have the tools to answer questions when asked, whereas you just ignore them.

(Burn) :lol:


But you didn't ask any questions did you?? (save for rhetorical ones). Look again. :lol:

The other difference is I wouldn't spend half hour on a reply just to prove to myself I'm clever. :lol:

Clown shoes son, you are clown shoes. :lol:


They're only rhetorical if you agree with them. If you disagree, then they're questions that you have to answer to counter me. This really isn't rocket science. :lol:

Nah, you only spend *checks time/date stamps* a third of the time on a reply 5-10% as long to try and achieve the same effect. That's obviously totally different. :lol: :lol:



Rhetorical questions demand no reply. Whether I agree or not is pretty irrelevant. I agree it's not rocket science. :lol:

To think this thread was once about Noel's solo record. I guess you've achieved what you set out to do.
blacknitecrash
Bonehead
 
Posts: 230
Joined: 13 Aug 2008, 10:59

Sir Noel- announcement on Wednesday 6th July

Postby Greg House » 15 Jul 2011, 11:21

blacknitecrash wrote:
Greg House wrote:
blacknitecrash wrote:
Greg House wrote:Well, there's the difference between you and I: I have the tools to answer questions when asked, whereas you just ignore them.

(Burn) :lol:


But you didn't ask any questions did you?? (save for rhetorical ones). Look again. :lol:

The other difference is I wouldn't spend half hour on a reply just to prove to myself I'm clever. :lol:

Clown shoes son, you are clown shoes. :lol:


They're only rhetorical if you agree with them. If you disagree, then they're questions that you have to answer to counter me. This really isn't rocket science. :lol:

Nah, you only spend *checks time/date stamps* a third of the time on a reply 5-10% as long to try and achieve the same effect. That's obviously totally different. :lol: :lol:



Rhetorical questions demand no reply. Whether I agree or not is pretty irrelevant. I agree it's not rocket science. :lol:

To think this thread was once about Noel's solo record. I guess you've achieved what you set out to do.


Once more for the terminally stupid:

They weren't intended as rhetorical questions. They become rhetorical questions when they persuade the person into agreement because, if they agree, the questions no longer demand a reply. If the person continues to disagree, then they do demand a reply and are therefore not rhetorical questions.

Understood? Or do I need to explain this very simple concept in terms a 9 year old would understand?

It really amazes me how f**king retarded Oasis fans are sometimes. Then again, what should I expect from piss-throwing neanderthals? :lol: :lol:
User avatar
Greg House
R'Kid
 
Posts: 6245
Joined: 13 Aug 2008, 10:59

Sir Noel- announcement on Wednesday 6th July

Postby blacknitecrash » 15 Jul 2011, 11:36

Greg House wrote:
blacknitecrash wrote:
Greg House wrote:
blacknitecrash wrote:
Greg House wrote:Well, there's the difference between you and I: I have the tools to answer questions when asked, whereas you just ignore them.

(Burn) :lol:


But you didn't ask any questions did you?? (save for rhetorical ones). Look again. :lol:

The other difference is I wouldn't spend half hour on a reply just to prove to myself I'm clever. :lol:

Clown shoes son, you are clown shoes. :lol:


They're only rhetorical if you agree with them. If you disagree, then they're questions that you have to answer to counter me. This really isn't rocket science. :lol:

Nah, you only spend *checks time/date stamps* a third of the time on a reply 5-10% as long to try and achieve the same effect. That's obviously totally different. :lol: :lol:



Rhetorical questions demand no reply. Whether I agree or not is pretty irrelevant. I agree it's not rocket science. :lol:

To think this thread was once about Noel's solo record. I guess you've achieved what you set out to do.


Once more for the terminally stupid:

They weren't intended as rhetorical questions. They become rhetorical questions when they persuade the person into agreement because, if they agree, the questions no longer demand a reply. If the person continues to disagree, then they do demand a reply and are therefore not rhetorical questions.

Understood? Or do I need to explain this very simple concept in terms a 9 year old would understand?

It really amazes me how f**king retarded Oasis fans are sometimes. Then again, what should I expect from piss-throwing neanderthals? :lol: :lol:



is an assertion put in the form of a question without expecting an answer, e.g. Who do they think they are?

A rhetorical question, in simple terms, describes a question often based on rhetoric that does not necessarily require an answer. In fact, it is often a way of making a tentative statement but phrasing it in the form of a question.

A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question posed for its persuasive effect without the expectation of a reply

Took about 20 seconds to find these definitions. None of which mention persuading the other person. Your questions were rhetoric, no amount of bullshit will persuade otherwise.

Didn't take you long to decend into insults and generalisations though did it? Well done, it makes your look so clever and above us all.
blacknitecrash
Bonehead
 
Posts: 230
Joined: 13 Aug 2008, 10:59

Sir Noel- announcement on Wednesday 6th July

Postby blacknitecrash » 15 Jul 2011, 11:37

And again...

To think this thread was once about Noel's solo record. I guess you've achieved what you set out to do.
blacknitecrash
Bonehead
 
Posts: 230
Joined: 13 Aug 2008, 10:59

Sir Noel- announcement on Wednesday 6th July

Postby Greg House » 15 Jul 2011, 11:42

blacknitecrash wrote:
Greg House wrote:
blacknitecrash wrote:
Greg House wrote:
blacknitecrash wrote:
Greg House wrote:Well, there's the difference between you and I: I have the tools to answer questions when asked, whereas you just ignore them.

(Burn) :lol:


But you didn't ask any questions did you?? (save for rhetorical ones). Look again. :lol:

The other difference is I wouldn't spend half hour on a reply just to prove to myself I'm clever. :lol:

Clown shoes son, you are clown shoes. :lol:


They're only rhetorical if you agree with them. If you disagree, then they're questions that you have to answer to counter me. This really isn't rocket science. :lol:

Nah, you only spend *checks time/date stamps* a third of the time on a reply 5-10% as long to try and achieve the same effect. That's obviously totally different. :lol: :lol:



Rhetorical questions demand no reply. Whether I agree or not is pretty irrelevant. I agree it's not rocket science. :lol:

To think this thread was once about Noel's solo record. I guess you've achieved what you set out to do.


Once more for the terminally stupid:

They weren't intended as rhetorical questions. They become rhetorical questions when they persuade the person into agreement because, if they agree, the questions no longer demand a reply. If the person continues to disagree, then they do demand a reply and are therefore not rhetorical questions.

Understood? Or do I need to explain this very simple concept in terms a 9 year old would understand?

It really amazes me how f**king retarded Oasis fans are sometimes. Then again, what should I expect from piss-throwing neanderthals? :lol: :lol:



is an assertion put in the form of a question without expecting an answer, e.g. Who do they think they are?

A rhetorical question, in simple terms, describes a question often based on rhetoric that does not necessarily require an answer. In fact, it is often a way of making a tentative statement but phrasing it in the form of a question.

A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question posed for its persuasive effect without the expectation of a reply

Took about 20 seconds to find these definitions. None of which mention persuading the other person. Your questions were rhetoric, no amount of bullshit will persuade otherwise.

Didn't take you long to decend into insults and generalisations though did it? Well done, it makes your look so clever and above us all.



Hmmm...lol

Anyway, none of that disagrees with anything I just said.

Buy, hey, instead of reading my post why don't you just keep setting up straw men and attacking those...that way you actually feel like you stand a chance. :lol: :lol:
User avatar
Greg House
R'Kid
 
Posts: 6245
Joined: 13 Aug 2008, 10:59

Sir Noel- announcement on Wednesday 6th July

Postby blacknitecrash » 15 Jul 2011, 11:54

Greg House wrote:
blacknitecrash wrote:
Greg House wrote:
blacknitecrash wrote:
Greg House wrote:
blacknitecrash wrote:
Greg House wrote:Well, there's the difference between you and I: I have the tools to answer questions when asked, whereas you just ignore them.

(Burn) :lol:


But you didn't ask any questions did you?? (save for rhetorical ones). Look again. :lol:

The other difference is I wouldn't spend half hour on a reply just to prove to myself I'm clever. :lol:

Clown shoes son, you are clown shoes. :lol:


They're only rhetorical if you agree with them. If you disagree, then they're questions that you have to answer to counter me. This really isn't rocket science. :lol:

Nah, you only spend *checks time/date stamps* a third of the time on a reply 5-10% as long to try and achieve the same effect. That's obviously totally different. :lol: :lol:



Rhetorical questions demand no reply. Whether I agree or not is pretty irrelevant. I agree it's not rocket science. :lol:

To think this thread was once about Noel's solo record. I guess you've achieved what you set out to do.


Once more for the terminally stupid:

They weren't intended as rhetorical questions. They become rhetorical questions when they persuade the person into agreement because, if they agree, the questions no longer demand a reply. If the person continues to disagree, then they do demand a reply and are therefore not rhetorical questions.

Understood? Or do I need to explain this very simple concept in terms a 9 year old would understand?

It really amazes me how f**king retarded Oasis fans are sometimes. Then again, what should I expect from piss-throwing neanderthals? :lol: :lol:



is an assertion put in the form of a question without expecting an answer, e.g. Who do they think they are?

A rhetorical question, in simple terms, describes a question often based on rhetoric that does not necessarily require an answer. In fact, it is often a way of making a tentative statement but phrasing it in the form of a question.

A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question posed for its persuasive effect without the expectation of a reply

Took about 20 seconds to find these definitions. None of which mention persuading the other person. Your questions were rhetoric, no amount of bullshit will persuade otherwise.

Didn't take you long to decend into insults and generalisations though did it? Well done, it makes your look so clever and above us all.



Hmmm...lol

Anyway, none of that disagrees with anything I just said.

Buy, hey, instead of reading my post why don't you just keep setting up straw men and attacking those...that way you actually feel like you stand a chance. :lol: :lol:



'Stand a chance'. That is exactly the crux of the problem, is that you think this forum is some sort of battlefield.

But hey you've called me a p***k, retarded and terminally stupid in this thread alone so that makes you a winner...right?

Do you think this is acceptable conduct? People have different opinions yet those who don't agree with you get subjected to this kind of abuse.
blacknitecrash
Bonehead
 
Posts: 230
Joined: 13 Aug 2008, 10:59

Sir Noel- announcement on Wednesday 6th July

Postby Greg House » 15 Jul 2011, 12:03

Word of advice: If you live in a glass house then it's probably not a good idea to throw stones, yeah? :lol: :lol:
User avatar
Greg House
R'Kid
 
Posts: 6245
Joined: 13 Aug 2008, 10:59

Sir Noel- announcement on Wednesday 6th July

Postby Greg House » 15 Jul 2011, 12:49

I'll take that as a no. :lol:
User avatar
Greg House
R'Kid
 
Posts: 6245
Joined: 13 Aug 2008, 10:59

Sir Noel- announcement on Wednesday 6th July

Postby blacknitecrash » 15 Jul 2011, 12:53

Greg House wrote:I'll take that as a no. :lol:


Take it as I found it funny that you lost your argument and resorted to thretening behaviour.

Lucky you're not a neaderthal like all us Oasis fans aye?:lol: :lol:
blacknitecrash
Bonehead
 
Posts: 230
Joined: 13 Aug 2008, 10:59

PreviousNext

Return to Noel Gallagher

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron