We have had references to Mount Everest, Arsenal being relegated and Now Wasps. Why don't you or Grendel just answer the question raised by the op.... What spurious lies did the CT tell?
Who knows, who knows if a payment has been made. All we know is that there is an agreement and it is settled.
Maybe we need to wait for the next SCG meeting to find anything out in between Wasps PR assaults
We have had references to Mount Everest, Arsenal being relegated and Now Wasps. Why don't you or Grendel just answer the question raised by the op.... What spurious lies did the CT tell?
Where you were trying to be funny. Oh well, as long as you get lots of likesNo doubt Mart and Tony will be along shortly to cyber wank you off.
Doesn't the OP say bullshit? (I did a search for lies within the thread but couldn't see anything about spurious lies)
Where you were trying to be funny. Oh well, as long as you get lots of likesNo doubt Mart and Tony will be along shortly to cyber wank you off.
I was trying to be polite. But look up bullshit - it refers to lies, untruths etc. then answer the question...
nonsense, lies, or exaggeration.
We have had references to Mount Everest, Arsenal being relegated and Now Wasps. Why don't you or Grendel just answer the question raised by the op.... What spurious lies did the CT tell?
I've never said lies. Why are you lying about that?
Perhaps you could explain what of the original article was false then?
Where have I used the word false?
Are you the official spokes boy for astute and Martcov when they are not around?
Where have I used the word false?
Are you the official spokes boy for astute and Martcov when they are not around?
What do you think spurious means?
I'm asking for myself. If astute or mart have any questions for you I'm sure they'll ask you themselves.
No need to add to the thread. Most if not all have seen through the rubbish he has come out with and all we have to do now is leave him to dig a bigger hole.
ah another thread hijacked by childish insults.......
ah another thread hijacked by childish insults.......
In my humble opinion, the thread was started with the primary ambition of goading folk into an argument over semantics and presenting the opportunity to Grendull to revert to type and start his usual tirade. As such; not so much hijacked as fulfilled
No it was merely to point out the "threat" which most sensible people scoffed at on the original thread was sensationalist journalism.
The first post is hardly goading anyone. Those who swallowed it and were embarrassed by their gullibility (or in some cases a desire for it to be truthful) were the ones who starting hurling rocks about.
Much the same as you when I was also laughing at the Pressley off to Huddersfield nonsense.
Did the original news come from an SCG meeting?
Would it have appeared online if people weren't bitching on here?
It isn't really proven wrong, it was hidden away in the paper where nobody could see and then appeared days later online.
So you believe they really care about few on here, who only believe what some prize winning journalist in a free paper writes.
Get real.
I think someone is obsessed with a certain Prize Winning Journalist.
By most I assume we mean the 4 or 5 of you.
Spurious is misleading, using facts to interpret a headline piece of data to achieve a desired outcome from its readership in the opinion they form.Consider the conservative influenced Daily Mail. On Sunday it decided to report that a poll put the consituency candidate standing for the Tories ahead of Nigel Farage with some dramatic headline that denounced him and implied he was on the brink.
Close examination showed only 1 of four polls put the Tory ahead and that by 1 point with a statiscal margin for error of 4 points. Was the leading article a lie? No. Was it misleading - totally.
Interestingly most people assume bullshit is lying. Not so. The second most popular definition is foolish talk. Let's be honest you'd havd had to be foolish to have swallowed the bull shit in that article.
How ironic that your misinterpreted meaning of the word spurious is itself spurious.
From the Cambridge online dictionary
Spurious (adjective)
False and not what it appears to be, or (of reasons and judgements) based on something that has not been correctly understood and therfore false.
If you're going to use big words in an attempt to look intelligent at least have the intelligence to look up the meaning of that word first.
The most humorous part of your post is that it is a big word.
I said it means misleading.
Let's look at some of the synonyms used for misleading shall we?
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/misleading
Tony having a nightmare of SBK proportions
Indeed. The second synonym on the list is "false". Which brings me back to my original question. What part of the article was false?
Spurious may well be a synonym for the word misleading but you used the word spurious in your OP not misleading. The meaning of the word "misleading" is tending to confuse or mislead, deceptive. As per your link.
You were clearly confused by the article and that mislead you to misuse the worth spurious. Unless of course you think the article was deceptive in which case I'll ask you again, what part of the article is false.
So you are saying if someone wanted to use an alternate word to misleading and used an on line Thesaurus then spurious is not an alternative?
Are you sure?
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english-thesaurus/misleading?showCookiePolicy=true
Even I'm getting embarrassed for you now.
Were you off school the day they taught you how to use a thesaurus? Of course you can use spurious as an alternative to misleading but what you're supposed to do next is look up in a dictionary the synonym for it's exact meaning so you don't use that word out of context unless of course you're intellectual enough to already understand the exact meaning. Which clearly you're not.
So what you are saying is a forged picture, say of a Constable, is a spurious work of art because it is a forgery?
ointlaugh: Thanks Grendull. That really cheered me up.
I've just re-read your opening post and I understand now. It was a letter of complaint about an advert for trick cow shit that flashes up online when you read the SP article. Spurious Bullshit (false cowpat) it was so obvious. Boy do I feel silly.
The item is not false but the spurious element is that the process taken is not uncommon but never leads to the outcome the headline suggests.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?