Results 1 to 27 of 27

Thread: Arguing is about Winning?

  1. #1
    2 EVIL I golden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Several stories high
    TIM
    EIE prob 6
    Posts
    2,969
    Mentioned
    106 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Arguing is about Winning?

    From http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/ar...sert.html?_r=1

    Reason Seen More as Weapon Than Path to Truth

    By PATRICIA COHEN

    For centuries thinkers have assumed that the uniquely human capacity for reasoning has existed to let people reach beyond mere perception and reflex in the search for truth. Rationality allowed a solitary thinker to blaze a path to philosophical, moral and scientific enlightenment.

    Now some researchers are suggesting that reason evolved for a completely different purpose: to win arguments. Rationality, by this yardstick (and irrationality too, but we’ll get to that) is nothing more or less than a servant of the hard-wired compulsion to triumph in the debating arena. According to this view, bias, lack of logic and other supposed flaws that pollute the stream of reason are instead social adaptations that enable one group to persuade (and defeat) another. Certitude works, however sharply it may depart from the truth.

    The idea, labeled the argumentative theory of reasoning, is the brainchild of French cognitive social scientists, and it has stirred excited discussion (and appalled dissent) among philosophers, political scientists, educators and psychologists, some of whom say it offers profound insight into the way people think and behave. The Journal of Behavioral and Brain Sciences devoted its April issue to debates over the theory, with participants challenging everything from the definition of reason to the origins of verbal communication.

    “Reasoning doesn’t have this function of helping us to get better beliefs and make better decisions,” said Hugo Mercier, who is a co-author of the journal article, with Dan Sperber. “It was a purely social phenomenon. It evolved to help us convince others and to be careful when others try to convince us.” Truth and accuracy were beside the point.

    Indeed, Mr. Sperber, a member of the Jean-Nicod research institute in Paris, first developed a version of the theory in 2000 to explain why evolution did not make the manifold flaws in reasoning go the way of the prehensile tail and the four-legged stride. Looking at a large body of psychological research, Mr. Sperber wanted to figure out why people persisted in picking out evidence that supported their views and ignored the rest — what is known as confirmation bias — leading them to hold on to a belief doggedly in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence.

    Other scholars have previously argued that reasoning and irrationality are both products of evolution. But they usually assume that the purpose of reasoning is to help an individual arrive at the truth, and that irrationality is a kink in that process, a sort of mental myopia. Gary F. Marcus, for example, a psychology professor at New York University and the author of “Kluge: The Haphazard Construction of the Human Mind,” says distortions in reasoning are unintended side effects of blind evolution. They are a result of the way that the brain, a Rube Goldberg mental contraption, processes memory. People are more likely to remember items they are familiar with, like their own beliefs, rather than those of others.

    What is revolutionary about argumentative theory is that it presumes that since reason has a different purpose — to win over an opposing group — flawed reasoning is an adaptation in itself, useful for bolstering debating skills.

    Mr. Mercier, a post-doctoral fellow at the University of Pennsylvania, contends that attempts to rid people of biases have failed because reasoning does exactly what it is supposed to do: help win an argument.

    “People have been trying to reform something that works perfectly well,” he said, “as if they had decided that hands were made for walking and that everybody should be taught that.”

    Think of the American judicial system, in which the prosecutors and defense lawyers each have a mission to construct the strongest possible argument. The belief is that this process will reveal the truth, just as the best idea will triumph in what John Stuart Mill called the “marketplace of ideas.”

    Mr. Mercier and Mr. Sperber have skeptics as well as fans. Darcia Narvaez, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Notre Dame and a contributor to the journal debate, said this theory “fits into evolutionary psychology mainstream thinking at the moment, that everything we do is motivated by selfishness and manipulating others, which is, in my view, crazy.”

    To Ms. Narvaez, “reasoning is something that develops from experience; it’s a subset of what we really know.” And much of what we know cannot be put into words, she explained, pointing out that language evolved relatively late in human development.

    “The way we use our minds to navigate the social and general worlds involves a lot of things that are implicit, not explainable,” she said.

    On the other side of the divide, Jonathan Haidt, a psychology professor at the University of Virginia, said of Mr. Sperber and Mr. Mercier, “Their work is important and points to some ways that the limits of reason can be overcome by putting people together in the right way, in particular to challenge people’s confirmation biases.”

    This “powerful idea,”

    he added, could have important real-world implications.

    As some journal contributors noted, the theory would seem to predict constant deadlock. But Mr. Sperber and Mr. Mercier contend that as people became better at producing and picking apart arguments, their assessment skills evolved as well.

    “At least in some cultural contexts, this results in a kind of arms race towards greater sophistication in the production and evaluation of arguments,” they write. “When people are motivated to reason, they do a better job at accepting only sound arguments, which is quite generally to their advantage.” Groups are more likely than individuals to come up with better results, they say, because they will be exposed to the best arguments.

    Mr. Mercier is enthusiastic about the theory’s potential applications. He suggests, for example, that children may have an easier time learning abstract topics in mathematics or physics if they are put into a group and allowed to reason through a problem together.

    He has also recently been at work applying the theory to politics. In a new paper, he and Hélène Landemore, an assistant professor of political science at Yale, propose that the arguing and assessment skills employed by groups make democratic debate the best form of government for evolutionary reasons, regardless of philosophical or moral rationales.

    How, then, do the academics explain the endless stalemates in Congress? “It doesn’t seem to work in the U.S.,” Mr. Mercier conceded.

    He and Ms. Landemore suggest that reasoned discussion works best in smaller, cooperative environments rather than in America’s high-decibel adversarial system, in which partisans seek to score political advantage rather than arrive at consensus.

    Because “individual reasoning mechanisms work best when used to produce and evaluate arguments during a public deliberation,” Mr. Mercier and Ms. Landemore, as a practical matter, endorse the theory of deliberative democracy, an approach that arose in the 1980s, which envisions cooperative town-hall-style deliberations. Championed by the philosophers John Rawls and Jürgen Habermas, this sort of collaborative forum can overcome the tendency of groups to polarize at the extremes and deadlock, Ms. Landemore and Mr. Mercier said.

    Anyone who enjoys “spending endless hours debating ideas” should appreciate their views, Mr. Mercier and Mr. Sperber write, though, as even they note, “This, of course, is not an argument for (or against) the theory.”

  2. #2
    Darn Socks Director Abbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Southwest USA
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    6,724
    Mentioned
    235 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    There's arguing to win and there's arguing for fun. Completely different.

    ESTj
    1w2 sp/so 1-2-6
    Brilliand's Younger Sister
    Squishy's Older Sister

    Johari Nohari

    Quote Originally Posted by Ritella View Post
    Over here, we'll put up with (almost) all of your crap. You just have to use the secret phrase: "I don't value it. It's related to <insert random element here>, which is not in my quadra."
    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    Abbie is so boring and rigid it's awesome instead of boring and rigid. She seems so practical and down-to-the-ground.

  3. #3
    Samuel the Gabriel H. MisterNi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA.
    TIM
    C-IEE Ne (862)
    Posts
    1,131
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Director Abbie View Post
    There's arguing to win and there's arguing for fun. Completely different.
    Which is what I think is a pretty big distinction between LIEs and ILEs. One is in it to win it, the other gets caught up in the moment and ends up enjoying it.

    IEE Ne Creative Type

    Some and role lovin too. () I too...
    !!!!!!

  4. #4
    Korpsy Knievel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    4,234
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MisterNi View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Director Abbie View Post
    There's arguing to win and there's arguing for fun. Completely different.
    Which is what I think is a pretty big distinction between LIEs and ILEs. One is in it to win it, the other gets caught up in the moment and ends up enjoying it.
    Rubbish. Either or both can manifest in anyone who's engaged in argument.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    607
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by k0rpsey View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MisterNi View Post

    Which is what I think is a pretty big distinction between LIEs and ILEs. One is in it to win it, the other gets caught up in the moment and ends up enjoying it.
    Rubbish. Either or both can manifest in anyone who's engaged in argument.

  6. #6
    Samuel the Gabriel H. MisterNi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA.
    TIM
    C-IEE Ne (862)
    Posts
    1,131
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by k0rpsey View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MisterNi View Post

    Which is what I think is a pretty big distinction between LIEs and ILEs. One is in it to win it, the other gets caught up in the moment and ends up enjoying it.
    Rubbish. Either or both can manifest in anyone who's engaged in argument.
    I'm not so sure. Of the people I've debated with, I've noticed that ENTjs do well in formal debates with the expressed purpose of settling the debate. For the ILEs, I'm using myself as an example and usually don't debate with winning in mind but debate is the most effective way to find out someone's real thoughts on an subject. I'm in no way claiming this is an absolute statement, but just some observations.

    IEE Ne Creative Type

    Some and role lovin too. () I too...
    !!!!!!

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    607
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MisterNi View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by k0rpsey View Post

    Rubbish. Either or both can manifest in anyone who's engaged in argument.
    I'm not so sure. Of the people I've debated with, I've noticed that ENTjs do well in formal debates with the expressed purpose of settling the debate. For the ILEs, I'm using myself as an example and usually don't debate with winning in mind but debate is the most effective way to find out someone's real thoughts on an subject. I'm in no way claiming this is an absolute statement, but just some observations.
    an ENTj may generally be more interested in reaching a definitive end point to a discussion (especially one concerning a practical matter) than an ENTp (J vs P), but this doesn't mean ENTj's are any more intent on "winning" a debate than ENTp's or that ENTj's cannot enjoy an intellectual argument.

  8. #8
    Darn Socks Director Abbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Southwest USA
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    6,724
    Mentioned
    235 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    An intellectual argument? That's a discussion. The only kinds or arguments I know of are the kind where one is trying to convince a numbskull of something obvious and the kind where both know the answer but one proves reality false.

    ESTj
    1w2 sp/so 1-2-6
    Brilliand's Younger Sister
    Squishy's Older Sister

    Johari Nohari

    Quote Originally Posted by Ritella View Post
    Over here, we'll put up with (almost) all of your crap. You just have to use the secret phrase: "I don't value it. It's related to <insert random element here>, which is not in my quadra."
    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    Abbie is so boring and rigid it's awesome instead of boring and rigid. She seems so practical and down-to-the-ground.

  9. #9
    Samuel the Gabriel H. MisterNi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA.
    TIM
    C-IEE Ne (862)
    Posts
    1,131
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Timmy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MisterNi View Post

    I'm not so sure. Of the people I've debated with, I've noticed that ENTjs do well in formal debates with the expressed purpose of settling the debate. For the ILEs, I'm using myself as an example and usually don't debate with winning in mind but debate is the most effective way to find out someone's real thoughts on an subject. I'm in no way claiming this is an absolute statement, but just some observations.
    an ENTj may generally be more interested in reaching a definitive end point to a discussion (especially one concerning a practical matter) than an ENTp (J vs P), but this doesn't mean ENTj's are any more intent on "winning" a debate than ENTp's or that ENTj's cannot enjoy an intellectual argument.
    Wrong. This isn't about who's more practical or who's more conclusive as both types are moreso within their respective domains of Ne/Ti and Te/Ni. Are you a noob at socionics or something?

    IEE Ne Creative Type

    Some and role lovin too. () I too...
    !!!!!!

  10. #10
    Le roi internet Bluenoir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Zeta Reticuli
    TIM
    Ne-LII
    Posts
    392
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Who has ever actually "won" an argument? If anything, it just furthers cements the combatants in their views even moreso. At least thats how it seems to pan out in my experience.

    I still think reason is a better way of assessing validity then mere assertions. In my opinion, denying the validity of reason on the basis of it being just semantics to win arguments, is tinging on sophism.
    Last edited by Bluenoir; 06-19-2011 at 05:23 AM.
    The mode of goodness conditions one to happiness, passion conditions him to the fruits of action, and ignorance to madness.

    Chapter 14, Verse 9.
    The Bhagavad Gita

  11. #11
    Darn Socks Director Abbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Southwest USA
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    6,724
    Mentioned
    235 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I've won a few arguments. I usually lose the fun arguments.

    ESTj
    1w2 sp/so 1-2-6
    Brilliand's Younger Sister
    Squishy's Older Sister

    Johari Nohari

    Quote Originally Posted by Ritella View Post
    Over here, we'll put up with (almost) all of your crap. You just have to use the secret phrase: "I don't value it. It's related to <insert random element here>, which is not in my quadra."
    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    Abbie is so boring and rigid it's awesome instead of boring and rigid. She seems so practical and down-to-the-ground.

  12. #12
    Lobo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    TIM
    EII 6w5
    Posts
    2,080
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ne types don't go into arguments to win them. It's taboo to reach a definite conclusion.

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    607
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MisterNi View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Timmy View Post

    an ENTj may generally be more interested in reaching a definitive end point to a discussion (especially one concerning a practical matter) than an ENTp (J vs P), but this doesn't mean ENTj's are any more intent on "winning" a debate than ENTp's or that ENTj's cannot enjoy an intellectual argument.
    Wrong. This isn't about who's more practical or who's more conclusive as both types are moreso within their respective domains of Ne/Ti and Te/Ni. Are you a noob at socionics or something?
    Wrong.

    The term "conclusive," may carry different connotations for you than for me, but I believe I stand on firm ground in asserting that rational types (j types) are generally considered to be more conclusive than irrational types (p types). Check out the below information, which I copied from Wikisocion.
    -------------------------------------------------
    Typical characteristics
    Rationals

    Tend to plan ahead, make decisions early.
    Are more often rigid and stubborn.
    Do not like to change their decisions.
    Tend to finish what they started.

    Irrationals

    Tend to wait and see, more spontaneous.
    Are more often flexible and tolerant.
    Change their decisions frequently.
    Tend to start new things without finishing them.

    --------------------------------

    Don't tell me you honestly believe that each of these descriptions could be be equally well characterized by the adjective "conclusive." I realize wikisocion isn't the most authoritative resource, but I doubt you will find a more authoritative socionics resource disputing the general premise embodied in the language of the wikisocion article. So yeah, J types could be described as "more conclusive" than P types.

    As far as whether LIE are especially prone to seek rapid closure to an argument over a "practical" matter relative to an ILE, I'm not going to debate this point at great length because "practical" is such a vague term that our pursuing this matter would invite a meaningless word game. For whatever it's worth, I did not say LIE's are more practical than ILE's (although based upon what I consider practical, I do believe this to be the case. Perhaps this is a product of my being a Te valuer). Rather, I stated that LIE's tend to be particularly conclusive in matters of practicality. Practicality, defined as "The aspects of a situation that involve the actual doing or experience of something rather than theories or ideas," strikes me as a particularly Je concept. Given that Te, a Je function, is the leading function of the LIE, it seems reasonable to state that LIE's are especially conclusive/decisive in practical matters (at least those of a the Te sort) on account of strong, accepting Te.

    I find your most recent comment ironic in the extreme. You went ahead and made a couple of unfounded distinctions between ILE's and LIE's that were clearly a product of your personal biases and limited experience and/or misunderstanding of socionics theory. I called you out, and you in turn inappropriately accused me of doing the very same thing that I appropriately accused you of doing. What makes matters worse is that you did so in totally hypocritical way. What if I were turn the tables on you and say: "this is not a matter of who wants to win more or who has more fun as both types do moreso within their own domain?" I don't necessarily believe it to be true that all types are equally reasonable, fun, excitable, conclusive etc. within their respective strong functions, but if you do than you ought to hold your own theories to the same standards to which you hold theories with which you disagree. Your being Ti creative doesn't mean you can make your own rules about logical consistency. Oh shit, and did Timmy, a Te type, just demonstrate conclusiveness in a Ti matter? I think this inconsistently applied theory of yours needs some refinement.

    The pertinent question is as follows: are you are noob at socionics or something?


    Finally, let me change the topic slightly. Do you believe that I am arguing with you for the sake of winning or for the sake of having fun? To be frank, I rather get a kick out of trying to win an argument, and if I lose then I must have learned something, which is totally winning. Basically, arguing is a win, win, win.
    Last edited by Timmy; 06-19-2011 at 07:29 PM.

  14. #14
    Korpsy Knievel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    4,234
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Timmy View Post
    I rather get a kick out of trying to win an argument, and if I lose then I must have learned something, which is totally winning. Basically, arguing is a win, win, win.

  15. #15
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    there's the time investment to consider. if you spent 48 hours trying to convince someone of an elementary fact and only after all that time learn something about how stubborn idiots can be you'd probably have been better of spending the time on a productive endeavor.

  16. #16
    Haikus Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    22,740
    Mentioned
    531 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    LSE argue to WIN
    They discuss things otherwise.

  17. #17
    Le roi internet Bluenoir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Zeta Reticuli
    TIM
    Ne-LII
    Posts
    392
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It's more that I try to show them why I think their thinking is flawed. A person who has no intention of considering any viewpoints but their own, is not going to listen to reason, or contary information, no matter how strong of a case you may have.

    (Unless it's completely overwhelming)

    A discussion however, is different. I am talking about actual conflict, not a "debate".
    The mode of goodness conditions one to happiness, passion conditions him to the fruits of action, and ignorance to madness.

    Chapter 14, Verse 9.
    The Bhagavad Gita

  18. #18
    Darn Socks Director Abbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Southwest USA
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    6,724
    Mentioned
    235 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maritsa33 View Post
    LSE argue to WIN
    They discuss things otherwise.
    You've never seen an LSE in a good mood argue with an INTx or IXFp friend, have you?

    ESTj
    1w2 sp/so 1-2-6
    Brilliand's Younger Sister
    Squishy's Older Sister

    Johari Nohari

    Quote Originally Posted by Ritella View Post
    Over here, we'll put up with (almost) all of your crap. You just have to use the secret phrase: "I don't value it. It's related to <insert random element here>, which is not in my quadra."
    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    Abbie is so boring and rigid it's awesome instead of boring and rigid. She seems so practical and down-to-the-ground.

  19. #19
    Haikus Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    22,740
    Mentioned
    531 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Director Abbie View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Maritsa33 View Post
    LSE argue to WIN
    They discuss things otherwise.
    You've never seen an LSE in a good mood argue with an INTx or IXFp friend, have you?
    That's not arguing; that's banter and "shooting the sh*t"; it's in jest or fun. We're talking about arguing (because that involves throwing a lot of necessary facts to WIN). This is a problem solver type and the objective in an argument is important; to get to the bottom line and to be the one on top (winning).

  20. #20
    2 EVIL I golden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Several stories high
    TIM
    EIE prob 6
    Posts
    2,969
    Mentioned
    106 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maritsa33 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Director Abbie View Post

    You've never seen an LSE in a good mood argue with an INTx or IXFp friend, have you?
    That's not arguing; that's banter and "shooting the sh*t"; it's in jest or fun. We're talking about arguing (because that involves throwing a lot of necessary facts to WIN). This is a problem solver type and the objective in an argument is important; to get to the bottom line and to be the one on top (winning).
    Did you actually read the article, Maritsa? It doesn't discuss arguing with facts. It discusses arguing poorly by logical standards, and "winning" despite making poorly constructed arguments.

  21. #21

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    607
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    there's the time investment to consider. if you spent 48 hours trying to convince someone of an elementary fact and only after all that time learn something about how stubborn idiots can be you'd probably have been better of spending the time on a productive endeavor.
    Often times it is the man who thinks everyone else a stubborn idiot who turns out to be the stubborn idiot.

  22. #22
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

  23. #23

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    607
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    But I already knew that word labcoat. What makes you think my comment wasn't hypothetical?

  24. #24
    24601 ClownsandEntropy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    TIM
    LII, 5w6
    Posts
    670
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I imagine there's probably a difference between arguing-and-reasoning having its origins in winning, and arguing-and-reasoning being used to win at current. Even if reasoning was originally designed to persuade people to a certain view, our ability to reason has become useful in means not just when we are trying to justify or promote a position.

    On a side note, I'm curious as how it would work, the very beginnings of reasoning. For if you were to "stumble upon" (by random variation and etc., which I assume is how reasoning would come about) the ability to offer an argument, even a rudimentary one, to someone without the ability to reason, the argument would be moot. But if you offered it to someone who already had the ability to reason, this hypothetical would be moot - we would be discussing the use of reasoning after the very beginnings of reasoning, that is. I'm sure it's due to me not reading the article correctly, or the article not discussing that part, so if anyone has explanatory ideas.
    Warm Regards,



    Clowns & Entropy

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    18,006
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    To win is all that counts to me, couldn't careless it causing some disturbance or tension between me and someone else, when I know what am I talking about, that is.

  26. #26
    Cat King Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    TIM
    IIEE so/sp 4w5
    Posts
    736
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Know I'm mistyped?


    Why I am now.
    Why I was , once.

    DISCLAIMER
    The statements expressed in this signature may not necessarily reflect reality.

  27. #27
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    18,006
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cat King Cole View Post
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QS0q3mGPGg
    Junkie twat.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •