Cruise control in the rain.

topdaddy_2

DUTR wrote: »

Nothing stops me agreeing with you, however as the post #44 arrived before your post, then it is hard to agree with a statement that is yet to arrive?
I'm not a person that if someone gets something not quite right (your other thread about car heating practices) that they are always not quite right?

Post 44 was the reason I posted then you agreed with me.:p
also that last line, what? Speak ingerlish.

DUTR

topdaddy wrote: »

Post 44 was the reason I posted then you agreed with me.:p
also that last line, what? Speak ingerlish.

Yes, I agreed with you agreeing with me, if I hadn't posted #44 (exclude the mention of TD) then yes I would have been agreeing with you, but as #44 exists and then you posted agreeing with that in your subsequent posts, then yes I can see why you feel you I'm agreeing with you agreeing with me.

topdaddy_2

DUTR wrote: »

Yes, I agreed with you agreeing with me, if I hadn't posted #44 (exclude the mention of TD) then yes I would have been agreeing with you, but as #44 exists and then you posted agreeing with that in your subsequent posts, then yes I can see why you feel you I'm agreeing with you agreeing with me.

I never agreed with you as you were wrong to say that I would say it when I didnt say it even though you did say that I would say it. So you were wrong and wrong again and on top of that wrong on the third occasion and you decline the offer to say you were wrong. Interesting perogative. Now about those cars that "take off" anyon got more info on them?

DUTR

topdaddy wrote: »

I never agreed with you as you were wrong to say that I would say it when I didnt say it even though you did say that I would say it. So you were wrong and wrong again and on top of that wrong on the third occasion and you decline the offer to say you were wrong. Interesting perogative. Now about those cars that "take off" anyon got more info on them?

Read post #44 again, and my subsequent posts, where did I say where or what you were going to say? Perhaps you missed the keyword IF.
Once again you start off sensible, you get a chance to remain credible, then faulter by carrying on with childish stupidness.
Bit rich about an offer to say I was wrong, I wasn't wrong, however dragging the topic of being wrong, did you ever admit your being wrong about how a car heating system perhaps works? Or are we to just forget that?

RichardD1970

topdaddy wrote: »

Well dicky, your post has done a runner.

Yes, I deleted it because I miss read the argument you and DUTR were having. I mixed up who had argued what point and on reflection what I posted wasn't relevant.

I made a mistake! :rotfl:

Unfortunately, when you get a reputation for being a !!!!!, whether justified or not, it can lead to people making wrong assumptions about what you are posting.


Yours, Dicky :cool:
(not my name and on obvious ploy to try and make some sort of point :rotfl:)

topdaddy_2

DUTR wrote: »

Read post #44 again, and my subsequent posts, where did I say where or what you were going to say? Perhaps you missed the keyword IF.
Once again you start off sensible, you get a chance to remain credible, then faulter by carrying on with childish stupidness.
Bit rich about an offer to say I was wrong, I wasn't wrong, however dragging the topic of being wrong, did you ever admit your being wrong about how a car heating system perhaps works? Or are we to just forget that?

Ill list where you were wrong and why: post 44 to suggest that I would say that is wrong. The word if is irrelevant. The suggestion is there and its wrong.
Post 53 to say that modern cars do, then follow that with do not. Well theres either a condradiction in there or a mistake, both of which would be wrong, right?
Then post 57 not quite sure if you are wrong or not as it seems to agree with my sentiment on cruise, but it, of course, contradicts post 53.
Then the later part of post 63 is incoherent.
Following on from that is post 65 where you say I agreed with you when I didnt. This too is wrong. So potentially more than three times wrong there. and of course saying above you werent wrong is by its nature incorrect for the reasons listed above. All down to you trying to avoid agreeing with me:T I mean a powerful vehicle applying maximum power to accelerate to a selected cruise speed would be downright dangerous(which you and others agreed) and the heater stuff is jack all to do with this thread, any other threads Ive oosted on that you would like to comment on?

topdaddy_2

RichardD1970 wrote: »

Yes, I deleted it because I miss read the argument you and DUTR were having. I mixed up who had argued what point and on reflection what I posted wasn't relevant.

I made a mistake! :rotfl:

Unfortunately, when you get a reputation for being a !!!!!, whether justified or not, it can lead to people making wrong assumptions about what you are posting.


Yours, Dicky :cool:
(not my name and on obvious ploy to try and make some sort of point :rotfl:)

I assumed you had after the event and experessed confusion in my posts at the lack of quotability(if thats a word). And reputations can be unfounded, see dutrs posts for justification of that. And I dont care what your name is, dicky or !!!!!! is an accepted shortened vereion of richard and what ive chosen to refer to you as, no a point just an abreviation.

DUTR

topdaddy wrote: »

Ill list where you were wrong and why: post 44 to suggest that I would say that is wrong. The word if is irrelevant. The suggestion is there and its wrong.
Post 53 to say that modern cars do, then follow that with do not. Well theres either a condradiction in there or a mistake, both of which would be wrong, right?
Then post 57 not quite sure if you are wrong or not as it seems to agree with my sentiment on cruise, but it, of course, contradicts post 53.
Then the later part of post 63 is incoherent.
Following on from that is post 65 where you say I agreed with you when I didnt. This too is wrong. So potentially more than three times wrong there. and of course saying above you werent wrong is by its nature incorrect for the reasons listed above. All down to you trying to avoid agreeing with me:T I mean a powerful vehicle applying maximum power to accelerate to a selected cruise speed would be downright dangerous(which you and others agreed) and the heater stuff is jack all to do with this thread, any other threads Ive oosted on that you would like to comment on?

The heater stuff has lot's to do with your comments on being wrong, the word IF is relevant to post #44, as for your final line any
other thread I would like to comment on? Well let's just say the BMW 6 series thread?

There was no mention on #44 to suggest you would say that, I posted IF TD had posted that, as you appear to misunderstand that then you appear to misunderstand what follows.

topdaddy_2

DUTR wrote: »

The heater stuff has lot's to do with your comments on being wrong, the word IF is relevant to post #44, as for your final line any
other thread I would like to comment on? Well let's just say the BMW 6 series thread?

There was no mention on #44 to suggest you would say that, I posted IF TD had posted that, as you appear to misunderstand that then you appear to misunderstand what follows.

Wrong again, it was an x6 thread, and wrong to say that if is relevant. Its not. You have suggested that I would be incorrect in describing a cruise control system. Which im not. There is no misunderstanding to your implication. There is a little misunderstanding to some of your posts but I would hazard to guess thats due to haste in replying.

DUTR

topdaddy wrote: »

Wrong again, it was an x6 thread, and wrong to say that if is relevant. Its not. You have suggested that I would be incorrect in describing a cruise control system. Which im not. There is no misunderstanding to your implication. There is a little misunderstanding to some of your posts but I would hazard to guess thats due to haste in replying.

That's your understanding of it, let me explain as you are in denial, when somebody posts something that is obviously badly thought out and makes them look silly then it's a TD (topdaddy) moment, so the post #44 if topdaddy had posted such foolishness, then I could understand, it wasn't a prediction of what you may write, I or anybody could never know that, I posted 6 series as the X6 is a type of 6 series and I'm not up on BMW models (however no doubt you MAY start arguing that the X6 isn't a type of 6 series)

There maybe a little misunderstanding to my posts to you, however there seems to be a lot of misunderstandings from your posts in a lot of threads, this is the 3rd one at a quick recall where IMO your are making yourself look an idiot or just trolling.
Fact of the matter is what you understand from the post #44 is up to you, what other readers understand from it is up to them, you already have created a reputation for yourself, if you want to keep that up, then that is up to you.