Watching your dad scream...

Cranky B ( snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com) scribbled incoherantly:

Indeed: Anecotes, absent of ANY contextual and statistical data.

Thanks for showing that you grasp AbZero of the topic...

Well, that will up your total word count by 10%...

Andre

Big-um-words-um, good-um-grammar, little-um-thought-um.

Fuck off asswipe.

Cranky B ( snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com) flounced ignorantly and petulantly:

Clearly, " Cranky " is so, due to it's INABILITY to debate/ refute the *facts*.

How... Feminist of you.

Andre

I said the number is most likely bullshit which it very likely is Why the f*ck you have a problem with me saying the number sounds like bullshit or that numbers relating to women are often bullshit is beyond me.

The dribble you spilling now is poor at best. Speak again when you have something a bit more relevant then arguing with your own inept ability to comprehend.

Sheesh, not even a good troll.

Reading your other posts I can honestly say that you are honestly a twit. Criticizing spelling and grammar mistakes and smugness that is a bit baffling. You have offered nothing to the sock group but belittling members, wise ass comments only you find entertaining and little else.

Sure, I'm jealous of your limited potential. You must be a very happy person eh? Might make a perfect member of the FBI, welfare counselor or children's book writer

In typical soc fashion

Is it this comment that you were so offended by?

"I was suggesting a possible reason why manipulation is a priority. The interest in the number are likely companies and advertisers looking at demographics. If television can acts as a peer leader spreading the hate/liberation/misandry becomes that much easier and free."

You dirtbag

"Andre Lieven" wrote

You haven't *proved* your "fact" (sorry, statement) yet! :-((

"Andre Lieven" wrote

Ermm - I think the game is still Nil-Nil !

Oh, so you claim to know *more* about this topic than do the economists of PBS' " Wall Street Week ", who stated that figure ?

Please post PROOF of your *qualifications* to know more than them...

Indeed, the FACTS are " beyond you ".

But, thats your problem, not mine.

Yes, you were rather EASY to handle, and *show up*...

Andre

Cranky B ( snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com) drooled:

Ad hom. Proof that you have NO argument, so all you call offer is to call those whose arguments have prevailed, names.

Indeed. When you have NO facts to offer up, to support your claims, that is an odd position from which to be smug.

Yeah, people such as you whose claims I so well show to be cowshit, tend to get " CRanky " about being so *easily shown up*.

I'm good with that, though.

Ah, now that we've well shown that you CAN'T manage to debate/refute the TOPIC, now you want to play the IGNORANT game of guessing details about my life.

Well, why not ? You should have the opportunity to be WRONG, some more...

Indeed.

Andre

I gave a reference to that figure having been prominently stated by a panel on consumer spending on the prestigious US PBS program " Wall Street Week ", seen on most stations Fridays at 8:30.

Well, thats still a perfect score from uk.finance: Zero.

Andre

Cranky B in news:bfuii0h55g66vtpl28udbluki07vlsi9lm@

"andre" is ESL. "He" recycles lines from people who have recently crisped him. A 3yr old could wipe him (it?) out in a flame. I wouldn't try to guess why "he" doesn't use more pleasant methods to practice his english.

A real troll is (often) amusing. Just plonk him.

It's interesting that some ppl catalog 'pests':

but imo it's sufficient to just plonk on-demand.

Okay Andre and Cranky pull down your pants and let someone get out a ruler and we'll settle this thing once and for all.