Don't argue semantics with me Richie. you know full well what I mean.

I do. What I'm not sure about is how you got from you posting about how gullible your boss is to ts with gay abondon.

Gullible, who said that, and where?

Oh, I see now. you didn't read the stuff I put up then deleted. McF was referring to that.

Don't worry yourself about it.

I said gullible, one post up, on this thread.
That referred to your bosses blind acceptance of false statistics and how easily he was fooled by the actress.

Where and who said that?

According to your initial post, your boss did. Not sure why you couldn't see that in there

I'd be surprised if I had to break it down for you.

Or did he post a later blog referring to his later research into RTAs and stating that actress never really had him fooled?

I'm surprised at you protesting on these lines, surely that's one of the reasons why your profession has been filling its boots for the past 20 years or so.

Hmm, I see you have missed the point entirely. Not the first time though eh?

I missed your point. You could always explain it if you thought there were a valid one. If. Or is that what you wrote and then deleted? Out of embarrassment?

I got my point.

There was no point, I put a link to a website up, McF reacted, I took it down. You then took his reaction to refer to an earlier post, which it did not. You've been scrabbling for a coherent line of discussion since.

As for the gaffer relying on dodgy statistics. You're darn tooting he does. Who do you think provides them.

I'd have thought you'd have learned your lesson.

So why didn't you just summarise it's content? You might have been able to make a point that way. I didn't make any reference to McF's response at all, only your posts.

Your thread, so your role to make some point to discuss in it. Was there one?

I didn't say your gaffer relied on dodgy statistics. Why did you think I did?

It's been a while since you mentioned that. Was it time for it's biannual airing was it?

My boss did this blog on a piece of paper and left it on my desk today:


"[istay off rlfans.com and get some fkng work done[/i"

The point was to share the wider impact of said course compared to the three points. You either choose to buy into that or not. Personally i think it a well written and well thought out blog. Again if you don't that's up to you. the rest has just been , as I say, an attempt by you to cling to a frail discursive line that I don't really follow.

To be fair "General Sherman" was probably the best rlfans moment ever.

IIRC it was you finding a pic of a tree in your deleted posts that saved me.

That was your point. Not well made, but then you did just copy and paste someone else's work without any addition of your own.

I read it as an indication of how gullible your boss was, and how betrayed road safety has been by the gov's "Speed kills" mantra.

If you didn't follow my line, why didn't you just ask for clarification?

The correct picture was in my temp net files folder, which still bemuses me to this day.

I couldn't have cared less what your line was. I was just sharing an interestingly written article. SHame you couldn't take it as that really.

What you thought was interestingly written, anyway.
Did you have any thoughts on it yourself other than thinking it was interestingly written?

If you didn't care what my line was, despite not understanding it, why did you keep responding?

Ah, You've seen me in Walkabout then.

It was also the thread where I found out that I had just cut down a tree in my new back garden worth around £8000.

He might not have done but I have and can agree with your point!

You think that will easily be forgotten?

Classic moment.