Aussie wrote on Jan 23
rd, 2014 at 6:02pm:
Cods, I defy anyone to respond to your scattergun all over the shop posts which merge apples with oranges and utterly destroys Thread flow.
I do know you subscribe to the smoke = fire theory for some, but not for others. I think that is all Mr Smith was trying to establish as well.
I think you are the one... losing an arguement again and this is what you do..last time it was the BIG SEARCH.. looking for where I dared mentioned thomos name without using the prefix ALLEGED....LOL.. how many hours did you spend on that one..
you are the one that scatterguns any thread.. all i ask for IS PROOF OF YOUR INSINUATIONS>. and when there is NONE..
you kind of implode...
i know what
where theres smoke there is fire means..
Idiom Definitions for 'Where there's smoke, there's fire'
When there is an
indication or sign of
something bad, usually the
indication is correct.
Read more at http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/where+there's+smoke,+there's+fire.html#oblZ8BDg5HH5OWI5.99
personally I think that definition is a bit over the top... I would say in a lot of cases.....not all...
,you are the one challenging me about the quote...
with not one word of context.,
. then you deny it.. then you challenge again
HUGE black clouds smoke..
when I ask WHAT THICK BLACK CLOUDS OF SMOKE>..
you come up with this crap...
anything to avoid answering the question that you posed....go away.. go and talk to smith he sounds right up your alley...another liar. who can never produce the links.
btw you brought Abbott into a thread about THOMO.. I didnt..
so dont argue with anyone else for daring to do that will you..
![Angry Angry](http://www.ozpolitic.com/yabbfiles/Templates/Forum/default/angry.gif)
as a taxi driver you make a shocking bush lawyer.
gawd I trust piggy isnt taking any advice from you.
then again.. let me think about that.one..