As you well know, I could prove that there WERE cutaway jackets with no tails in 1888, just as I could prove that there were 700 watt gas lamps around.
You did nothing of the sort on either count, and it was your annoying insistence that you were right on both instances that led to the ugliness in the first place. The conventional, dictionary definition of a cutaway was a garment with tails, and gas lamps in the 1880s were dim and didn't emit much light. Honestly, how do you expect me not to lose my temper when you say, in effect "Haha, I'm right and I've proven you wrong" when I know you haven't?
You tried that tactic on a recent thread dealing with the Kelly crime scene photographs and once again churned out your "I've proven you wrong!" mantra, and it just tends to injure your credibility a bit.
There's no ugliness in this thread, and I have no intention of being abusive to you or anyone else here. As you noted, I believed yours was a good point and said so. I just didn't expect to find you disagreeing with me on a Druitt thread of all places. I thought there was other stuff here you might seize upon first. I was wrong. I'll get over it some day.
I think that somebody who has been proven wrong in this fashion at a number of occasions ought to learn from it.
No, Fisherman.
Just don't.
Don't complain about your treatment in one breath and then try to antagonise me as much as possible in the other. You know that's complete nonsense. No, I'm not accusing you of obsessing over my posts, but it really doesn't aid your cause to make those sorts of statements and then wonder why people lose their rag with you.
Ben
Leave a comment: