Apparently at least two of you were confused when I said that the BBC Africa's 12% "serving bans" was not Coe's 40% "doping postives", after "consistency" linked to the BBC Africa article.
I didn't quote the BBC and had previously referred to "doping positives" - Coe's words. It was a pointless pedantic diversion on your part. Like you always do. You didn't stick to what Coe actually said.
Once again when proved wrong you then diminish this defeat by accusations of pedantry. Go away chief non reading troll.
Apparently at least two of you were confused when I said that the BBC Africa's 12% "serving bans" was not Coe's 40% "doping postives", after "consistency" linked to the BBC Africa article.
I didn't quote the BBC and had previously referred to "doping positives" - Coe's words. It was a pointless pedantic diversion on your part. Like you always do. You didn't stick to what Coe actually said.
How narcissistic. This wasn't ever about you or Coe. You were not even a party to the conversation, until you butted in at the end, like the bull in a china shop, obliviously unaware of the topic of conversation.
Apparently the fact that two other people can discuss a BBC quote, and what's wrong with it, without you, causes you a great deal of confusion that still persists.
Of course, as you were not part of the conversation, it was "consistency" who quoted the BBC, and I replied to "consistency" with two corrections, which he acknowledged was correct.
Only then did you butt in, not to point out any error or correction to anything I said, but to offer confused opinions and conclusions based on wrong assumptions on the wrong topic, and blaming me for your lack of awareness and comprehension, accusing me of conflating what I clearly separated and you subsequently conflated, accusing me of diminishing one percentage from Coe by correcting another clearly unrelated percentage by the BBC Africa, and accusing me now of diversion, for responding with corrections to a quote that "consistency" linked and quoted.
It's not being exaggerated. It is appalling. You, on the other hand, seek to minimize it, suggesting it's no worse than a bunch of other countries that no one is seeking to ban. You're wrong but that's what the liar does.
... whatever you are saying is for your own benefit.
Curious -- you replied to Armstronglivs, so you mean to say that anything he says is for his own benefit? I would agree that his posts are often self-serving.
So you spend page after page on the BBC's journalistic error - because that enables you to "reduce" Kenyan doping - and not what Coe actually said - which stops you. You are a total w*nker.
Foul mouthed chief troll heading for an other ban.
I didn't quote the BBC and had previously referred to "doping positives" - Coe's words. It was a pointless pedantic diversion on your part. Like you always do. You didn't stick to what Coe actually said.
Once again when proved wrong you then diminish this defeat by accusations of pedantry. Go away chief non reading troll.
It's not being exaggerated. It is appalling. You, on the other hand, seek to minimize it, suggesting it's no worse than a bunch of other countries that no one is seeking to ban. You're wrong but that's what the liar does.
I didn't quote the BBC and had previously referred to "doping positives" - Coe's words. It was a pointless pedantic diversion on your part. Like you always do. You didn't stick to what Coe actually said.
How narcissistic. This wasn't ever about you or Coe. You were not even a party to the conversation, until you butted in at the end, like the bull in a china shop, obliviously unaware of the topic of conversation.
Apparently the fact that two other people can discuss a BBC quote, and what's wrong with it, without you, causes you a great deal of confusion that still persists.
Of course, as you were not part of the conversation, it was "consistency" who quoted the BBC, and I replied to "consistency" with two corrections, which he acknowledged was correct.
Only then did you butt in, not to point out any error or correction to anything I said, but to offer confused opinions and conclusions based on wrong assumptions on the wrong topic, and blaming me for your lack of awareness and comprehension, accusing me of conflating what I clearly separated and you subsequently conflated, accusing me of diminishing one percentage from Coe by correcting another clearly unrelated percentage by the BBC Africa, and accusing me now of diversion, for responding with corrections to a quote that "consistency" linked and quoted.
"Only then did you butt in, not to point out any error or correction to anything I said, but to offer confused opinions and conclusions based on wrong assumptions on the wrong topic, and blaming me for your lack of awareness and comprehension, accusing me of conflating what I clearly separated and you subsequently conflated, accusing me of diminishing one percentage from Coe by correcting another clearly unrelated percentage by the BBC Africa, and accusing me now of diversion, for responding with corrections to a quote that "consistency" linked and quoted."(quote)
Unbelievable. That was a single sentence. It has to be some kind of record - except he's already probably beaten it with an earlier effort. And utterly devoid of meaning. It's like spittle coming from the mouth of someone having a fit.
It's not being exaggerated. It is appalling. You, on the other hand, seek to minimize it, suggesting it's no worse than a bunch of other countries that no one is seeking to ban. You're wrong but that's what the liar does.
... whatever you are saying is for your own benefit.
Curious -- you replied to Armstronglivs, so you mean to say that anything he says is for his own benefit? I would agree that his posts are often self-serving.
That you think that is what he is saying confirms that everyday English is beyond you.
How narcissistic. This wasn't ever about you or Coe. You were not even a party to the conversation, until you butted in at the end, like the bull in a china shop, obliviously unaware of the topic of conversation.
Apparently the fact that two other people can discuss a BBC quote, and what's wrong with it, without you, causes you a great deal of confusion that still persists.
Of course, as you were not part of the conversation, it was "consistency" who quoted the BBC, and I replied to "consistency" with two corrections, which he acknowledged was correct.
Only then did you butt in, not to point out any error or correction to anything I said, but to offer confused opinions and conclusions based on wrong assumptions on the wrong topic, and blaming me for your lack of awareness and comprehension, accusing me of conflating what I clearly separated and you subsequently conflated, accusing me of diminishing one percentage from Coe by correcting another clearly unrelated percentage by the BBC Africa, and accusing me now of diversion, for responding with corrections to a quote that "consistency" linked and quoted.
"Only then did you butt in, not to point out any error or correction to anything I said, but to offer confused opinions and conclusions based on wrong assumptions on the wrong topic, and blaming me for your lack of awareness and comprehension, accusing me of conflating what I clearly separated and you subsequently conflated, accusing me of diminishing one percentage from Coe by correcting another clearly unrelated percentage by the BBC Africa, and accusing me now of diversion, for responding with corrections to a quote that "consistency" linked and quoted."(quote)
Unbelievable. That was a single sentence. It has to be some kind of record - except he's already probably beaten it with an earlier effort. And utterly devoid of meaning. It's like spittle coming from the mouth of someone having a fit.
"Only then did you butt in, not to point out any error or correction to anything I said, but to offer confused opinions and conclusions based on wrong assumptions on the wrong topic, and blaming me for your lack of awareness and comprehension, accusing me of conflating what I clearly separated and you subsequently conflated, accusing me of diminishing one percentage from Coe by correcting another clearly unrelated percentage by the BBC Africa, and accusing me now of diversion, for responding with corrections to a quote that "consistency" linked and quoted."(quote)
Unbelievable. That was a single sentence. It has to be some kind of record - except he's already probably beaten it with an earlier effort. And utterly devoid of meaning. It's like spittle coming from the mouth of someone having a fit.
This confirms everyday English is beyond you.
In "everyday English" this means - what?
"Only then did you butt in, not to point out any error or correction to anything I said, but to offer confused opinions and conclusions based on wrong assumptions on the wrong topic, and blaming me for your lack of awareness and comprehension, accusing me of conflating what I clearly separated and you subsequently conflated, accusing me of diminishing one percentage from Coe by correcting another clearly unrelated percentage by the BBC Africa, and accusing me now of diversion, for responding with corrections to a quote that "consistency" linked and quoted". (Quote)
How narcissistic. This wasn't ever about you or Coe. You were not even a party to the conversation, until you butted in at the end, like the bull in a china shop, obliviously unaware of the topic of conversation.
Apparently the fact that two other people can discuss a BBC quote, and what's wrong with it, without you, causes you a great deal of confusion that still persists.
Of course, as you were not part of the conversation, it was "consistency" who quoted the BBC, and I replied to "consistency" with two corrections, which he acknowledged was correct.
Only then did you butt in, not to point out any error or correction to anything I said, but to offer confused opinions and conclusions based on wrong assumptions on the wrong topic, and blaming me for your lack of awareness and comprehension, accusing me of conflating what I clearly separated and you subsequently conflated, accusing me of diminishing one percentage from Coe by correcting another clearly unrelated percentage by the BBC Africa, and accusing me now of diversion, for responding with corrections to a quote that "consistency" linked and quoted.
"Only then did you butt in, not to point out any error or correction to anything I said, but to offer confused opinions and conclusions based on wrong assumptions on the wrong topic, and blaming me for your lack of awareness and comprehension, accusing me of conflating what I clearly separated and you subsequently conflated, accusing me of diminishing one percentage from Coe by correcting another clearly unrelated percentage by the BBC Africa, and accusing me now of diversion, for responding with corrections to a quote that "consistency" linked and quoted."(quote)
Unbelievable. That was a single sentence. It has to be some kind of record - except he's already probably beaten it with an earlier effort. And utterly devoid of meaning. It's like spittle coming from the mouth of someone having a fit.
"Only then did you butt in, not to point out any error or correction to anything I said, but to offer confused opinions and conclusions based on wrong assumptions on the wrong topic, and blaming me for your lack of awareness and comprehension, accusing me of conflating what I clearly separated and you subsequently conflated, accusing me of diminishing one percentage from Coe by correcting another clearly unrelated percentage by the BBC Africa, and accusing me now of diversion, for responding with corrections to a quote that "consistency" linked and quoted."(quote)
Unbelievable. That was a single sentence. It has to be some kind of record - except he's already probably beaten it with an earlier effort. And utterly devoid of meaning. It's like spittle coming from the mouth of someone having a fit.
Ban this foul mouth.
I agree. No one should be allowed to write sentences like that.
"Only then did you butt in, not to point out any error or correction to anything I said, but to offer confused opinions and conclusions based on wrong assumptions on the wrong topic, and blaming me for your lack of awareness and comprehension, accusing me of conflating what I clearly separated and you subsequently conflated, accusing me of diminishing one percentage from Coe by correcting another clearly unrelated percentage by the BBC Africa, and accusing me now of diversion, for responding with corrections to a quote that "consistency" linked and quoted."(quote)
Unbelievable. That was a single sentence. It has to be some kind of record - except he's already probably beaten it with an earlier effort. And utterly devoid of meaning. It's like spittle coming from the mouth of someone having a fit.
"Only then did you butt in, not to point out any error or correction to anything I said, but to offer confused opinions and conclusions based on wrong assumptions on the wrong topic, and blaming me for your lack of awareness and comprehension, accusing me of conflating what I clearly separated and you subsequently conflated, accusing me of diminishing one percentage from Coe by correcting another clearly unrelated percentage by the BBC Africa, and accusing me now of diversion, for responding with corrections to a quote that "consistency" linked and quoted". (Quote)
That's only one sentence, folks. Verbal diarrhea.
What does it mean?
1) English comprehension is a challenge for you.
2) You butted into a conversation that was finished.
3) You did not identify any errors in my post, nor correct anything I said.
4) You were confused about the topic of the brief exchange between me and "consistency".
5) You wrongly assumed my post was about Coe's quote of "doping positives", and not about two faults with the BBC Africa's quote of "serving bans".
6) You wrongly concluded that the AIU's published data of "12% serving bans are Kenyan" diminishes, or was meant to diminish, Coe's unrelated quote of "40% doping positives are Kenyan".
7) You blamed me for your confusion and lack of awareness and lack of comprehension. (See also point 1)
8) You accused me of conflating two quotes after I clearly said that they were different.
9) In fact you wrongly conflated the two quotes.
10) You wrongly accused me of diversion for talking about the BBC quote that "consistency" linked and quoted.
11) I gave two corrections regarding the BBC quote. You did not dispute these.
12) When you cannot argue with merit, you object to form, and create another diversion.
"Only then did you butt in, not to point out any error or correction to anything I said, but to offer confused opinions and conclusions based on wrong assumptions on the wrong topic, and blaming me for your lack of awareness and comprehension, accusing me of conflating what I clearly separated and you subsequently conflated, accusing me of diminishing one percentage from Coe by correcting another clearly unrelated percentage by the BBC Africa, and accusing me now of diversion, for responding with corrections to a quote that "consistency" linked and quoted". (Quote)
That's only one sentence, folks. Verbal diarrhea.
What does it mean?
1) English comprehension is a challenge for you.
2) You butted into a conversation that was finished.
3) You did not identify any errors in my post, nor correct anything I said.
4) You were confused about the topic of the brief exchange between me and "consistency".
5) You wrongly assumed my post was about Coe's quote of "doping positives", and not about two faults with the BBC Africa's quote of "serving bans".
6) You wrongly concluded that the AIU's published data of "12% serving bans are Kenyan" diminishes, or was meant to diminish, Coe's unrelated quote of "40% doping positives are Kenyan".
7) You blamed me for your confusion and lack of awareness and lack of comprehension. (See also point 1)
8) You accused me of conflating two quotes after I clearly said that they were different.
9) In fact you wrongly conflated the two quotes.
10) You wrongly accused me of diversion for talking about the BBC quote that "consistency" linked and quoted.
11) I gave two corrections regarding the BBC quote. You did not dispute these.
12) When you cannot argue with merit, you object to form, and create another diversion.
Extraordinary. When asked to explain one sentence, as long as a novel, in "everyday English" it took you 12 sentences to do so. 12 sentences to explain just one. In "everyday English".
With you I need do nothing. You make a fool of yourself entirely through your own efforts.
"Only then did you butt in, not to point out any error or correction to anything I said, but to offer confused opinions and conclusions based on wrong assumptions on the wrong topic, and blaming me for your lack of awareness and comprehension, accusing me of conflating what I clearly separated and you subsequently conflated, accusing me of diminishing one percentage from Coe by correcting another clearly unrelated percentage by the BBC Africa, and accusing me now of diversion, for responding with corrections to a quote that "consistency" linked and quoted". (Quote)
That's only one sentence, folks. Verbal diarrhea.
What does it mean?
1) English comprehension is a challenge for you.
2) You butted into a conversation that was finished.
3) You did not identify any errors in my post, nor correct anything I said.
4) You were confused about the topic of the brief exchange between me and "consistency".
5) You wrongly assumed my post was about Coe's quote of "doping positives", and not about two faults with the BBC Africa's quote of "serving bans".
6) You wrongly concluded that the AIU's published data of "12% serving bans are Kenyan" diminishes, or was meant to diminish, Coe's unrelated quote of "40% doping positives are Kenyan".
7) You blamed me for your confusion and lack of awareness and lack of comprehension. (See also point 1)
8) You accused me of conflating two quotes after I clearly said that they were different.
9) In fact you wrongly conflated the two quotes.
10) You wrongly accused me of diversion for talking about the BBC quote that "consistency" linked and quoted.
11) I gave two corrections regarding the BBC quote. You did not dispute these.
12) When you cannot argue with merit, you object to form, and create another diversion.
You can expect him to actually read anything as he is too busy with vile insults.
Extraordinary. When asked to explain one sentence, as long as a novel, in "everyday English" it took you 12 sentences to do so. 12 sentences to explain just one. In "everyday English".