Banks win partial High Court victory on credit cards

Wutang_2

never-in-doubt wrote: »

None mate - even [STRIKE]w[/STRIKE] bankers need a brain :rotfl: :rotfl:

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Are you allowed to insult others but not vice versa?

I still think you are !!!!!! but its quality entertainment!! Keep up the good work!!

:eek::D;):p:o:cool::T:A:j:beer:money:

Tiddlywinks

never-in-doubt wrote: »

in all intense and purposes.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Yep, you really understand what you're writing, don't you?

never-in-doubt

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

I will leave you two in peace to compare your low intellects.

Dont forget to post you articles on defendents claiming UK Banks are forging credit agreement & producing them in court here......

^^^^^^^^
I left a gap for you...

:rotfl:

Wutang wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Are you allowed to insult others but not vice versa?

I still think you are !!!!!! but its quality entertainment!! Keep up the good work!!

:eek::D;):p:o:cool::T:A:j:beer:money:

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Yep, you really understand what you're writing, don't you?

Keep it coming, don't stop - there's a bunch of good losers.

I am still waiting for the proof that a lender has been sued (sorry sent to prison)... until such time then keep laughing at yourself, I love it. :eek: :eek:

never-in-doubt

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Yep, you really understand what you're writing, don't you?

Of course I do, what you think picking up on a typo over the actual context of the discussion at hand is clever? That just shows bad sportsmanship, i.e. you cannot defend yourself with a valid argument so you have to come back with silly grammatical errors?

Good for you - have fun but you'll find when it comes to the subject matter, I am anything but confused - thanks all the same for your concern

Tiddlywinks

never-in-doubt wrote: »

..... do you think picking up on a typo ...... is clever? ........ silly grammatical errors?

Oh, yes I do - but only because you can be really pompous and rude in your posts and sometimes use expressions that you don't really understand.

In this case, there is no way that your use of "intense and purposes" was a typo - the correct expression has keys on the other side of the keyboard. You just actually thought that that was how you wrote it, didn't you?

As to the thread topic - it never matters what others say, you always think you're right; so I won't waste my time.....

Anyway, "intense and purposes" that did tickle me..... :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

never-in-doubt

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

Oh, yes I do - but only because you can be really pompous and rude in your posts and sometimes use expressions that you don't really understand.

In this case, there is no way that your use of "intense and purposes" was a typo - the correct expression has keys on the other side of the keyboard. You just actually thought that that was how you wrote it, didn't you?

As to the thread topic - it never matters what others say, you always think you're right; so I won't waste my time.....

Anyway, "intense and purposes" that did tickle me..... :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

It says it all - keep clutching at those short straws, you obviously have nothing better to add do you? Enjoy, but i'd have better things to do myself :rolleyes:

But I am right - lol, that's what you miss! Have you even bothered to read the thread or did you just jump in to save a mate? The OP stated that if a lender issued a false agreement then they would sent to prison and I stated, and continue to state that this occurs daily and to date not one lender has been sent down.

They are the facts, so tell me then smart arsey, what exactly is incorrect with that statement that makes me 'pompous'?

Tiddlywinks

OK, you gave me a laugh with "intense and purposes" so I'll bite.....

As to whether you are "pompous"? I've grabbed a couple of examples from this thread but I would be spoilt for choice if I went wider in my reading of your stuff:

never-in-doubt wrote: »

How am I a nob exactly? You don't know me, maybe you mean i'm a clever nob which yea - I am!

never-in-doubt wrote: »

You best leave now - there's a good boy.
..............
Knew I was right, I usually am when it involves this subject matter :T

never-in-doubt wrote: »

If you have then you evidently have no experience of reading official papers - so try again, I ask!

Make your mind up or try and twist words of someone that doesn't actually understand the finer points of s.127(3) - there's a good boy

Oh, and this post just sounds plain paranoid :rolleyes:.

never-in-doubt wrote: »

maybe the old boy network means they still take back-handers

Anyway, where was I? Oh yes, "intense and purposes" :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:.

never-in-doubt

Definitely clutching at straws! You're select proofing posts, anyone can go through and select posts to chastise!

Get a life mate - seriously! If you can't find one, i'll sort you out with one at a discounted rate! :rotfl:.:rotfl:.

Wutang_2

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Of course I do, what you think picking up on a typo over the actual context of the discussion at hand is clever? That just shows bad sportsmanship, i.e. you cannot defend yourself with a valid argument so you have to come back with silly grammatical errors?

Good for you - have fun but you'll find when it comes to the subject matter, I am anything but confused - thanks all the same for your concern

Confirmed: NUTBAR

chattychappy

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

In this case, there is no way that your use of "intense and purposes" was a typo - the correct expression has keys on the other side of the keyboard. You just actually thought that that was how you wrote it, didn't you?

No, now you're demonstrating a lack of knowledge of modern linguistic theory, this error being consistent with the cohort model of how the brain retrieves items from its lexicon.

"intents" and "intense" are phonetically identical and it is normal to retrieve the wrong word when transcribing, just as I initially typed "your" rather than "you're". This doesn't mean you're thinking of the wrong word. When reading back through what you have written it is common to miss these mistakes for the same reason - the brain makes the same error in reverse. I never for a moment thought I meant the possessive pronoun rather than the contraction of "you are" - and I doubt whether there was any real confusion over the meaning of "intense" and "intents".

If you really wanted to be clever you might have picked up on "judgement" in "before the judgement in all intense and purposes".