Garden electrics?

[JohnW2]

John - it cannot have been removed when you quoted it here:

It HAS now been removed - I had to copy that quote from my earlier response (obviously posted before yours was removed). Just click on the 'ban-all-shed wrote ...' at the top of the quote and it will tell you that the post does not exist.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Seriously?

You actually expect me to believe that when you wrote his on 27/7 at 12:06

So tell us - did you write this:

I bought the one that had a lightbulb on it and one that had a power socket on it........don't know why you electricians make such a song and dance about how complicated it all it......get yourself down to B&Q and just follow the pictures on the front...........easy peasy........

because it's a lie ....

What are you suggesting is a lie?...

my post had already been removed, and you had to reconstruct it from memory in order to be able to "quote" it?

If you did do that, perhaps you could clear up a couple of things I find puzzling:

1) You must have manually typed 'quote="ban-all-sheds";p="3161112"', so where did you get the post number from?

2) How do you account for the fact that if we look at the timestamp of Mod 8's note, my post wasn't removed until 41 minutes after you posted?

 

[JohnW2]

Seriously? You actually expect me to believe that when you wrote his on 27/7 at 12:06 ... my post had already been removed, and you had to reconstruct it from memory in order to be able to "quote" it?

Don't be silly. As I just wrote (didn't you have your glasses on?), your post was obviously still there when I posted that message yesterday, but it has been removed subsequently - that's why I had to copy it from my previous (yesterday's) post when I re-posted it today, and the reason why I can no longer determine what else was in your post other that the bit I quoted.

It's really quite simple, even if you cannot (or do not want to) understand.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Don't be silly. As I just wrote (didn't you have your glasses on?), your post was obviously still there when I posted that message yesterday, but it has been removed subsequently - that's why I had to copy it from my previous (yesterday's) post when I re-posted it today, and the reason why I can no longer determine what else was in your post other that the bit I quoted.

It's really quite simple, even if you cannot (or do not want to) understand.

Indeed. And equally simple, therefore, even if you cannot (or do not want to) understand is that, as I wrote, right from the start, i.e. right from 12:06 on 27/7 when you quoted my post, you chose to ignore the second half of my "did you write this because XXXX or YYYY?" question.

 

[bernardgreen]

Even the garden gno ohms are starting to offer resistance to this childish and pointless "conversation"

 

[JohnW2]

i.e. right from 12:06 on 27/7 when you quoted my post, you chose to ignore the second half of my "did you write this because XXXX or YYYY?" question.

Indeed, but that's because I was not responding to anything to do with your question, whatever it may have been. I was responding only to the "because it's a lie" statement you made immediately after your quote of angelboy - not to anything you may or may not have written subsequently in that post.

IMO, in just a few weeks since your return, you have again reduced much of this forum to a farce, by your contributions to many threads. Whilst you have many valuable 'electrical' things to say, and despite the fact that I am a strong supporter of many of the points about electrical safety you wish to make (which would be valuable if only you could learn how to communicate them in a manner which was not counter-productive, and damaging to the forum in general), I have sadly come to the conclusion that, at least from my viewpoint, your potential benefit to the forum has now (again) probably become outweighed by the negative consequences of your contributions. That's just a statement of my feelings, not something I'm going to discuss.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

i.e. right from 12:06 on 27/7 when you quoted my post, you chose to ignore the second half of my "did you write this because XXXX or YYYY?" question.

Indeed, but that's because I was not responding to anything to do with your question, whatever it may have been. I was responding only to the "because it's a lie" statement you made immediately after your quote of angelboy - not to anything you may or may not have written subsequently in that post.

So you took a question with two parts to it, discarded one part, relabelled the remaining half of a question as a statement and carried on from there, ending up using your creation as a vehicle to criticise me for negative consequences.

Way to go.

 

[JohnW2]

So you took a question with two parts to it, discarded one part, relabelled the remaining half of a question as a statement ...

As I said, thanks to your choice of language, I no longer have the opportunity to look back, but I don't think I 're-labelled' anything - I believe that the statement to which I responded was always a statement. However, as I said, your behaviour has denied us the opportunity to discover what you actually did write, so there's no point in attempting to continue this discussion.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I believe that the statement to which I responded was always a statement.

You believe that when you read "Did you write {---} because.... or because... ?" that that was a statement, not a question.

If you say so.

However, as I said, your behaviour has denied us the opportunity to discover what you actually did write, so there's no point in attempting to continue this discussion.

How very convenient for you.