How Moneyweek Nailed It.

geneer

Pimperne1 wrote: »

To be fair to all I don't think you managed to provide one post of a bull predicting a "soft landing" in 2002. You did find one of the Building Societies predicting a soft landing of an increase of only around 13% for the year if I remember correctly but that doesn't really count as a soft landing on here.

Instead of going back to your old thread where you confuse the matter by posting myriad comments why don't you just shoot me down by linking to one organisation that was predicting a soft landing in 2002 (but not one where it at the same time predicted a fairly large jump in house prices over the coming year).

:rotfl:Of course pimp.
Because only you get to define what a bull is, and only you get to define what a soft landing is.

You know where the thread is champ. Bring it on.

Pimperne1

geneer wrote: »

:rotfl:Of course pimp.
Because only you get to define what a bull is, and only you get to define what a soft landing is.

You know where the thread is champ. Bring it on.

Thought not. Game over (where's Hamish)?

geneer

Pimperne1 wrote: »

Thought not. Game over (where's Hamish)?

Oh, sorry. I didn't realise. By concisely rejecting the boss-eyed premise that only you get to incorrectly assign meanings to statements in order to fallaciously reach your prefered conclusions, I have lost the game.
I would venture to suggest that that is not the case.


Like I said. You know where the thread is pimp.
Bring it on.