[Stammer]

[quote=Tripper]

Originally Posted by "Fluffy_Bunny":35644

Prince Andrew was a helicopter pilot for the Royal Navy in the Falklands war but he was flying a helicopter around the fleet acting as a missile decoy...

Yeah, I was just gonna mention that....and that was a bloodier war than Iraq...[/quote:35644]

Seeing as how I'm not you, when I looked at that I though you mean the Falklands were bloodier then Iraq in general, not for England. I didn't think it would piss you off so much to ask for a little clarification, and I'm not flexing anything I'm just trying to make it clear to myself, you may see that as being anal-retentive I just see it as honest curiosity.

Originally Posted by Tripper

flex your intellectual muscles

rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Tripper

Too bad you made a mistake

? What about the length of Fakland conflict? What was my mistake?

Originally Posted by Tripper

something so inessential.

The irony is immense.

Originally Posted by Tripper

Oops. Did I say inessential? I actually meant Insignificant.

in·es·sen·tial (n-snshl)
adj.
1. Not essential; unessential.

____________________________________

in·sig·nif·i·cant (nsg-nf-knt)
adj.
1. Not significant, especially:
a. Lacking in importance; trivial.
b. Lacking power, position, or value; worthy of little regard.
c. Small in size or amount.
2. Having little or no meaning.
2. Without essence.

The difference in these two words meant that had I not corrected you, you would have TOTALLY BEEN THROWN OFF OH NOOOOOOOO.

If it's so insignificant, and nominal to you, why even bother?

Aren't you being slightly hypocritical? You say this a non-issue yet you continue to browbeat me, over a simple misunderstanding.

[c312]

I can see how Stammer thought the way he did, it was an obvious misunderstanding.

[Tripper]

[quote=Stammer]

Originally Posted by Tripper

Yeah, I was just gonna mention that....and that was a bloodier war than Iraq...

Seeing as how I'm not you, when I looked at that I though you mean the Falklands were bloodier then Iraq in general, not for England. I didn't think it would piss you off so much to ask for a little clarification, and I'm not flexing anything I'm just trying to make it clear to myself, you may see that as being anal-retentive I just see it as honest curiosity.
[/quote:dc032]

You weren't "asking for clarification." You were flat out telling me I was wrong and turning a thread into an argument by calling out something that was irrelevant.
You were flexing your intellectual muscles by tangenting a thread into an argument over something that could have just been missed had you stayed ontopic instead of just having to show-off your huge buckets of knowledge.

Originally Posted by Stammer

? What about the length of Fakland conflict? What was my mistake?

You're mistake was not straight-off-the-cuff understanding what the "Falklands was bloodier than Iraq" statement was in reference to...Had you understood you wouldn't have posted (You obviously did understand, before I had even posted a second time, as you edited the post)...

Originally Posted by Stammer

If it's so insignificant, and nominal to you, why even bother?

Aren't you being slightly hypocritical? You say this a non-issue yet you continue to browbeat me, over a simple misunderstanding.

I'm pointing out for your future reference. I know I'm knit-picking now, but you obviously don't understand your foul and so therefore I must enlighten you.
It WAS a non-issue, and then you made it into an issue, and we are continuing disputing said issue until you either:
a) bail out because you agree it's pointless
or
b) get the idea

Oh, and for the record: Considering the amount of soldiers involved in the falklands, the length of the war, ships that were sunk, etc - The Falklands was a bloodier war.

[Stammer]

[img]http://www.worldpeace.no/filer/White-Flag-Small.jpg[/img]

Edit: In all honesty I wasn't trying to show anything off, and yes now reading back I did 'tell' you, my mistake. I fouled.