On Apr 17, 12:36 pm, Alex <n...@leng.id.au> wrote: > In aus.tv Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 17, 11:39 am, Alex <n...@leng.id.au> wrote: > >> In aus.tv Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > I POSTED, SOMEONE CORRECT A POST OF MINE WITHOUT MAKING AN ERROR > >> > and a dozen of you all FUCKED UP ON THE SPOT! > > >> No you didn't. Several times I posted the exact wording of your > >> *original* claim. I busted the claim several times before you > >> started adding caveats. > > >> For the record, I've corrected many of your posts without making an > >> initial error. Now I suppose you're going to stipulate said > >> corrections only count in posts made *after* your latest claim.... > > >> In fact, only after I thoroughly disproved your *original* claim > >> last night did you make this after-the-fact addition to your delusion > >> of "invulnerability". > > >> Well, *after* you had a meltdown and posted some rather strong threats > >> that you were going to track me down in person and deal with me... > > >> PS. Don't worry Graham, even a broken clock is right twice a day... > > > You'll have your day in Genesis Court. > > More threats. What a surprise. > > To paraphrase your previous posts - I'm not seeing any disproof in > your responses. Just disproven claims and more waffle... >
Well if you ever get around to posting an *example* of a valid_correction to any one of my posts rather than just saying
[Alex] LOOK IT UP CLAIM DISPROVEN SO THERE
then I'm all ears.
Proof by counterexample! It should be pretty easy to find a counterexample to my 100% correct claim on my 20,000 posts.