- Joined
- 25 Jul 2022
- Messages
- 13,117
- Reaction score
- 1,039
- Country
It was a constructive discussion earlier.
Then gant joined in
Then gant joined in
Lol.It was a constructive discussion earlier.
Pedantics would do well to proof read their posts before making such observations.Didn't do so well yourself.
Wrong way round, I dislike pointless recurring slogans and dishonest claims.Because like Roy he likes an argument.
There's a difference between typos, of which I make a few, and grammatical mistakes.Pedantics would do well to proof read their posts before making such observations.
What has this to do with a teacher making an observation about a pupils ability?There's a difference between typos, which I make a few, and grammatical mistakes.
With you all the way wild Bill Hickock.Wrong way round, I dislike pointless recurring slogans and dishonest claims.
What's that got to do with the original claim you made?What has this to do with a teacher making an observation about a pupils ability?
I've noticed this with you, Carman. You never want to come out of that comfort zone. Your teachers would know doubt in the past have noted on yourreport, has the ability but chooses not to use it.
All pis* and wind it is to be then.
Didn't do so well yourself.
Get it yet?What has this to do with a teacher making an observation about a pupils ability?
D'ya mean Wild Bill Hickok?With you all the way wild Bill Hickock.
No. Have you got the context yet in which it was said?Get it yet?
You'll know better than me.D'ya mean Wild Bill Hickok?
Everyone does.You'll know better than me.
Pedantics would do well to proof read their posts before making such observations.
Them not for light bulbs?Pedants.