Becuase you failed...He SAID he KNEW it.
...to >force< Imric to do your research.
Again.
HE said that HE knew it.
There's no "research" here.
I'll demonstrate.
I know the name of the President of the USofA.
Now, care to tell me how much "research" I'm going to have to put in to post it?
I know the country that Winston Churchill was Prime Minister of.
Care to tell me how much "research" I'm going to have to put in to post it?
But I'm some how trying to "force" him to do "research" for me.
Either he KNEW the name or he did NOT know the name.
Go ahead. I'll demonstrate. Post an incorrect name for the President of the USofA and see how many posts it takes me to correct you. Not how many times I'll say that you're wrong. How many posts it will take for me to post the CORRECT name.
"Research". Well, I guess to someone of your limited intellect, that does count as "research".
Mores the pity.
Its amazing...that you claim victory in a thread because of right shift...right shift that >you< created by not admitting that others were correct.No. I'm claiming victory because, as I've just shown, proving me wrong would be the work of a single post.
Since it could not be accomplished in a single post or 10 posts or 20 posts....
Well, how many times does someone have to say "you're wrong but I'm not going to tell you the correct information" before you realize that they do NOT HAVE THE "CORRECT" INFORMATION?
THAT is the point.
To "prove" my point, go ahead. Tell me that the name of the President of the USofA is Ralph. I'll be able to correct you in a single post.
THAT is the "proof".
One post.
No "research" 'cause I'm claiming I already know the name.
Just as imric claimed he knew the name.
The difference, I can supply the name in a single post, upon request.
He couldn't. Not in a single post. Not in ten posts. I'm sure that if we went for a HUNDRED posts, the cycle would be the same.
That is all the "proof" I need.