Jump to content

Things about The Peng Challenge Thread that I'll love to see in CMx2 WWII


Recommended Posts

You said, "I wonder where Chico is". You did not specify which Chico. Therefore, if you get an answer which displeases you, you have only yourself to blame.

Just like the rest of us have been blaming you for years.

You clown, you have deliberately and with willful and forknoweldgeable oversight chosen to quote only PART of my post ...

I wonder when the night shift is over in Chico ... I wonder where Chico is ... hell I wonder where Waldo is.

Context is everything ... from the Collins English Dictionary ...

context [ˈkɒntɛkst]

n 1. the parts of a piece of writing, speech, etc., that precede and follow a word or passage and contribute to its full meaning {it is unfair to quote out of context}

UNFAIR it says Boo Radley and that's the LEAST one could say of your many errors in this matter ...

I specifically said "IN Chico" and the preceeding post made it crystal clear even to a simpleton like yourself that it was a LOCATION ... part of an ADDRESS ... and NOT a name.

But you knew that didn't you Boo Radley ... knew it and DELIBERATELY and with malice aforethroat decided to post it ANYWAY ... EVEN THOUGH YOU KNEW IT WAS WRONG!

For shame Boo Radley, for shame.

Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 300
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You clown, you have deliberately and with willful and forknoweldgeable oversight chosen to quote only PART of my post ...

So? It was a complete thought (Such as it was... And you should treat it gently. It's in a stange place). I treated it as such.

Context is everything ... from the Collins English Dictionary ...

UNFAIR it says Boo Radley and that's the LEAST one could say of your many errors in this matter ...

I specifically said "IN Chico" and the preceeding post made it crystal clear even to a simpleton like yourself that it was a LOCATION ... part of an ADDRESS ... and NOT a name.

Your sentence asked where Chico was. I supplied information as to the location of a Chico. Don't blame me if it wasn't the Chico you sought.

But you knew that didn't you Boo Radley ... knew it and DELIBERATELY and with malice aforethroat decided to post it ANYWAY ... EVEN THOUGH YOU KNEW IT WAS WRONG!

For shame Boo Radley, for shame.

Joe

"Aforethroat"? Really? I've never done anything aforethroat before in my life.

Oh, and the information I rendered was not wrong. It may not have been the information you were seeking, but that does not make it wrong.

You really need to work through this whole solipsistic, "Just call me Mr. Center of the Universe, thank you very much".

You're much too simple a person to have that type of complex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You fool, the glacis is meaningless. It's the hooves man, the hooves. Their curvature is all wrong for the AssenGlenFrieterShooten Ausf II.

Ass.

Thats because this is clearly the Ausf III! Can't you see the kitchen sink attachment? If you are going to sound off all smarty pants on your knowledge of the Radar Regie Panzerabwehr Esel, at least get your models correct.

Arse

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats because this is clearly the Ausf III! Can't you see the kitchen sink attachment? If you are going to sound off all smarty pants on your knowledge of the Radar Regie Panzerabwehr Esel, at least get your models correct.

Arse

Nonsense Stuka ... another of those phrases that will live forever ... mostly because it's said so often ... the Ausf III had the tropical air filter and clearly the model in the photo had the high altitude filter and is therefore, beyond dispute, the Ausf II ©.

And that isn't the kitchen sink attachment but the lavatory sink attachment with the heavy duty hand cleaner. I'm NOT surprised that you couldn't tell the difference. [sneer]

Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course you don't. It's camouflage, sap. If you recognized it, it wouldn't be camouflage any more. It would be a failed attempt at camouflage. Must I explain everything? Sheesh.

Michael

If you're dealing with Boo Radley ... well ... yes.

Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you're both saying that there's no such thing as camouflage patterns? You think that camouflage is just applied willy-nilly? No planning? No careful study as to what needs to be blended and where?

Just an apathetic, world-weary, "Oh what does it matter, just throw some color here and there" attitude?

Just a fatuous, half-baked, irresponsible and slap-dash arrangement, with absolutely no regard as to the lives of all those poor boys who are counting on YOU Joe Shaw and YOU Michael Emrys and you both are just too filled with ennui to give a damn, is that it?

Well, not on my watch, buckos! Not on my watch!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nonsense Stuka ... another of those phrases that will live forever ... mostly because it's said so often ... the Ausf III had the tropical air filter and clearly the model in the photo had the high altitude filter and is therefore, beyond dispute, the Ausf II ©.

Yes...a classic error for the amateur enthusiast Joe and as such, an amateur you shall remain...for if you could afford those new bifocals you cherish so much...standing hour after hour drooling down the optometrist's window in downtown Pissant, Utah, you would have taken note that the high altitude filter you mention is NOT the cotton gauze filter but the foam gauze filter and as such is the pre-production Ausf III (a).

EVERYONE knows that!

Git.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you're both saying that there's no such thing as camouflage patterns?

Notice how he begins with a false assumption, putting words in my mouth that I never uttered—or more to the point, typed. Then he proceeds to blither and blather on and on and on to no good purpose whatsoever.

The MTB has fallen on hard times indeed when it is reduced to such inconsequential rafter rattling. I would as soon listen to "America the Beautiful" being farted through a kazoo.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Notice how he begins with a false assumption, putting words in my mouth that I never uttered—or more to the point, typed. Then he proceeds to blither and blather on and on and on to no good purpose whatsoever.

The MTB has fallen on hard times indeed when it is reduced to such inconsequential rafter rattling. I would as soon listen to "America the Beautiful" being farted through a kazoo.

Michael

And that's something ELSE that Boo Radley is intimately familiar with ... and the members of his household as well ... "Oh Gawd ... Boo's dragging out his kazoo again, head for the hills everyone."

Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes...a classic error for the amateur enthusiast Joe and as such, an amateur you shall remain...for if you could afford those new bifocals you cherish so much...standing hour after hour drooling down the optometrist's window in downtown Pissant, Utah, you would have taken note that the high altitude filter you mention is NOT the cotton gauze filter but the foam gauze filter and as such is the pre-production Ausf III (a).

EVERYONE knows that!

Git.

Oh Puhleeze ... the foam gauze filter again ... how many times must we provide the same evidence showing conclusively that the foam gauze filter NEVER WENT INTO PRODUCTION!

Yet another of Hitlers Wonder Weapons that existed only as trial models and never saw field use.

My Gawd you Australians will believe anything won't you.

Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats because this is clearly the Ausf III! Can't you see the kitchen sink attachment? If you are going to sound off all smarty pants on your knowledge of the Radar Regie Panzerabwehr Esel, at least get your models correct.

Arse

Are you as turned on as I am right now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...