K
krw
phil-news- said:
You should. It fits you perfectly, Doc.
-
Categories
-
Platforms
-
Content
messing with the power connection
- Thread starter [email protected]
- Start date
You should. It fits you perfectly, Doc.
K
krw
phil-news- said:
Do you not understand the purpose of quotation marks? Do you not
understand that you're an ass' behind?
| In article <[email protected]>, phil-news-
| [email protected] says...
|> | In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
|> | says...
| <snip>
|> |> | One could do an in-USA secure web browser too, just don't get caught
|> |> | "exporting" it (laptop). Since the Internet is "free", the whole
|> |> | thing wend down in flames, silly stories about kids in their
|> |> | bedrooms or not.
|> |>
|> |> Whatever. But it was not re-invented. It was re-implemented.
|> |
|> | To you intentionally compete in the Dimbulb competition, or do you
|> | come by it naturally?
|>
|> Your response makes no sense. Do you not understand the difference between
|> invention and implementation?
|
| Do you not understand the purpose of quotation marks? Do you not
| understand that you're an ass' behind?
Of course I understand quotation marks. What do they have to do with
invention vs. implementation?
| [email protected] says...
|> | In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
|> | says...
| <snip>
|> |> | One could do an in-USA secure web browser too, just don't get caught
|> |> | "exporting" it (laptop). Since the Internet is "free", the whole
|> |> | thing wend down in flames, silly stories about kids in their
|> |> | bedrooms or not.
|> |>
|> |> Whatever. But it was not re-invented. It was re-implemented.
|> |
|> | To you intentionally compete in the Dimbulb competition, or do you
|> | come by it naturally?
|>
|> Your response makes no sense. Do you not understand the difference between
|> invention and implementation?
|
| Do you not understand the purpose of quotation marks? Do you not
| understand that you're an ass' behind?
Of course I understand quotation marks. What do they have to do with
invention vs. implementation?
| krw wrote:
|>
|> In article <[email protected]>, phil-news-
|> [email protected] says...
|> > | In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
|> > | says...
|> <snip>
|> > |> | One could do an in-USA secure web browser too, just don't get caught
|> > |> | "exporting" it (laptop). Since the Internet is "free", the whole
|> > |> | thing wend down in flames, silly stories about kids in their
|> > |> | bedrooms or not.
|> > |>
|> > |> Whatever. But it was not re-invented. It was re-implemented.
|> > |
|> > | To you intentionally compete in the Dimbulb competition, or do you
|> > | come by it naturally?
|> >
|> > Your response makes no sense. Do you not understand the difference between
|> > invention and implementation?
|>
|> Do you not understand the purpose of quotation marks? Do you not
|> understand that you're an ass' behind?
|
|
| They never do.
I'm glad to see the two of you together. Now all I need to do is get
the other 4 of your type from other newsgroups to job you, and you all
will be together.
|>
|> In article <[email protected]>, phil-news-
|> [email protected] says...
|> > | In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
|> > | says...
|> <snip>
|> > |> | One could do an in-USA secure web browser too, just don't get caught
|> > |> | "exporting" it (laptop). Since the Internet is "free", the whole
|> > |> | thing wend down in flames, silly stories about kids in their
|> > |> | bedrooms or not.
|> > |>
|> > |> Whatever. But it was not re-invented. It was re-implemented.
|> > |
|> > | To you intentionally compete in the Dimbulb competition, or do you
|> > | come by it naturally?
|> >
|> > Your response makes no sense. Do you not understand the difference between
|> > invention and implementation?
|>
|> Do you not understand the purpose of quotation marks? Do you not
|> understand that you're an ass' behind?
|
|
| They never do.
I'm glad to see the two of you together. Now all I need to do is get
the other 4 of your type from other newsgroups to job you, and you all
will be together.
K
krw
phil-news- said:
Good grief Gert! I thought you could at least figure that out,
after having it held right in front of your stupid face! Wow,
you're dense!
K
krw
phil-news- said:| krw wrote:
|>
|> In article <[email protected]>, phil-news-
|> [email protected] says...
|> > | In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
|> > | says...
|> <snip>
|> > |> | One could do an in-USA secure web browser too, just don't get caught
|> > |> | "exporting" it (laptop). Since the Internet is "free", the whole
|> > |> | thing wend down in flames, silly stories about kids in their
|> > |> | bedrooms or not.
|> > |>
|> > |> Whatever. But it was not re-invented. It was re-implemented.
|> > |
|> > | To you intentionally compete in the Dimbulb competition, or do you
|> > | come by it naturally?
|> >
|> > Your response makes no sense. Do you not understand the difference between
|> > invention and implementation?
|>
|> Do you not understand the purpose of quotation marks? Do you not
|> understand that you're an ass' behind?
|
|
| They never do.
I'm glad to see the two of you together.
1000 miles isn't together.
where "your type" == people who have pointed out your arrogance over
your ignorance
Whatever that means. Phil, you've totally lost it.
| [email protected] wrote:
|>
|> | krw wrote:
|> |>
|> |> In article <[email protected]>, phil-news-
|> |> [email protected] says...
|> |> > | In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
|> |> > | says...
|> |> <snip>
|> |> > |> | One could do an in-USA secure web browser too, just don't get caught
|> |> > |> | "exporting" it (laptop). Since the Internet is "free", the whole
|> |> > |> | thing wend down in flames, silly stories about kids in their
|> |> > |> | bedrooms or not.
|> |> > |>
|> |> > |> Whatever. But it was not re-invented. It was re-implemented.
|> |> > |
|> |> > | To you intentionally compete in the Dimbulb competition, or do you
|> |> > | come by it naturally?
|> |> >
|> |> > Your response makes no sense. Do you not understand the difference between
|> |> > invention and implementation?
|> |>
|> |> Do you not understand the purpose of quotation marks? Do you not
|> |> understand that you're an ass' behind?
|> |
|> |
|> | They never do.
|>
|> I'm glad to see the two of you together. Now all I need to do is get
|> the other 4 of your type from other newsgroups to job you, and you all
|> will be together.
|
|
| "To job" What is that, some kinky thing you enjoy doing?
Typo. Should be "to join".
|>
|> | krw wrote:
|> |>
|> |> In article <[email protected]>, phil-news-
|> |> [email protected] says...
|> |> > | In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
|> |> > | says...
|> |> <snip>
|> |> > |> | One could do an in-USA secure web browser too, just don't get caught
|> |> > |> | "exporting" it (laptop). Since the Internet is "free", the whole
|> |> > |> | thing wend down in flames, silly stories about kids in their
|> |> > |> | bedrooms or not.
|> |> > |>
|> |> > |> Whatever. But it was not re-invented. It was re-implemented.
|> |> > |
|> |> > | To you intentionally compete in the Dimbulb competition, or do you
|> |> > | come by it naturally?
|> |> >
|> |> > Your response makes no sense. Do you not understand the difference between
|> |> > invention and implementation?
|> |>
|> |> Do you not understand the purpose of quotation marks? Do you not
|> |> understand that you're an ass' behind?
|> |
|> |
|> | They never do.
|>
|> I'm glad to see the two of you together. Now all I need to do is get
|> the other 4 of your type from other newsgroups to job you, and you all
|> will be together.
|
|
| "To job" What is that, some kinky thing you enjoy doing?
Typo. Should be "to join".
| In article <[email protected]>, phil-news-
| [email protected] says...
|> | krw wrote:
|> |>
|> |> In article <[email protected]>, phil-news-
|> |> [email protected] says...
|> |> > | In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
|> |> > | says...
|> |> <snip>
|> |> > |> | One could do an in-USA secure web browser too, just don't get caught
|> |> > |> | "exporting" it (laptop). Since the Internet is "free", the whole
|> |> > |> | thing wend down in flames, silly stories about kids in their
|> |> > |> | bedrooms or not.
|> |> > |>
|> |> > |> Whatever. But it was not re-invented. It was re-implemented.
|> |> > |
|> |> > | To you intentionally compete in the Dimbulb competition, or do you
|> |> > | come by it naturally?
|> |> >
|> |> > Your response makes no sense. Do you not understand the difference between
|> |> > invention and implementation?
|> |>
|> |> Do you not understand the purpose of quotation marks? Do you not
|> |> understand that you're an ass' behind?
|> |
|> |
|> | They never do.
|>
|> I'm glad to see the two of you together.
|
| 1000 miles isn't together.
|
|> Now all I need to do is get the other 4 of your type
|
| where "your type" == people who have pointed out your arrogance over
| your ignorance
Sure, describe it as that. I call it "crab apples of usenet". These are
the ones that choose to make personal attacks regarding accused errors but
do not specifically address the supposed errors.
| [email protected] says...
|> | krw wrote:
|> |>
|> |> In article <[email protected]>, phil-news-
|> |> [email protected] says...
|> |> > | In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
|> |> > | says...
|> |> <snip>
|> |> > |> | One could do an in-USA secure web browser too, just don't get caught
|> |> > |> | "exporting" it (laptop). Since the Internet is "free", the whole
|> |> > |> | thing wend down in flames, silly stories about kids in their
|> |> > |> | bedrooms or not.
|> |> > |>
|> |> > |> Whatever. But it was not re-invented. It was re-implemented.
|> |> > |
|> |> > | To you intentionally compete in the Dimbulb competition, or do you
|> |> > | come by it naturally?
|> |> >
|> |> > Your response makes no sense. Do you not understand the difference between
|> |> > invention and implementation?
|> |>
|> |> Do you not understand the purpose of quotation marks? Do you not
|> |> understand that you're an ass' behind?
|> |
|> |
|> | They never do.
|>
|> I'm glad to see the two of you together.
|
| 1000 miles isn't together.
|
|> Now all I need to do is get the other 4 of your type
|
| where "your type" == people who have pointed out your arrogance over
| your ignorance
Sure, describe it as that. I call it "crab apples of usenet". These are
the ones that choose to make personal attacks regarding accused errors but
do not specifically address the supposed errors.
| krw wrote:
|>
|> In article <[email protected]>, phil-news-
|> [email protected] says...
|> > | krw wrote:
|> > |>
|> > |> In article <[email protected]>, phil-news-
|> > |> [email protected] says...
|> > |> > | In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
|> > |> > | says...
|> > |> <snip>
|> > |> > |> | One could do an in-USA secure web browser too, just don't get caught
|> > |> > |> | "exporting" it (laptop). Since the Internet is "free", the whole
|> > |> > |> | thing wend down in flames, silly stories about kids in their
|> > |> > |> | bedrooms or not.
|> > |> > |>
|> > |> > |> Whatever. But it was not re-invented. It was re-implemented.
|> > |> > |
|> > |> > | To you intentionally compete in the Dimbulb competition, or do you
|> > |> > | come by it naturally?
|> > |> >
|> > |> > Your response makes no sense. Do you not understand the difference between
|> > |> > invention and implementation?
|> > |>
|> > |> Do you not understand the purpose of quotation marks? Do you not
|> > |> understand that you're an ass' behind?
|> > |
|> > |
|> > | They never do.
|> >
|> > I'm glad to see the two of you together.
|>
|> 1000 miles isn't together.
|>
|> > Now all I need to do is get the other 4 of your type
|>
|> where "your type" == people who have pointed out your arrogance over
|> your ignorance
|>
|> > from other newsgroups to job you, and you all
|> > will be together.
|>
|> Whatever that means. Phil, you've totally lost it.
|>
|> --
|> Keith
|
|
| Keith, they would chew his sorry ass up, and spit it out on SED.
There's only about 6 of you I've seen on the whole Usenet.
|>
|> In article <[email protected]>, phil-news-
|> [email protected] says...
|> > | krw wrote:
|> > |>
|> > |> In article <[email protected]>, phil-news-
|> > |> [email protected] says...
|> > |> > | In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
|> > |> > | says...
|> > |> <snip>
|> > |> > |> | One could do an in-USA secure web browser too, just don't get caught
|> > |> > |> | "exporting" it (laptop). Since the Internet is "free", the whole
|> > |> > |> | thing wend down in flames, silly stories about kids in their
|> > |> > |> | bedrooms or not.
|> > |> > |>
|> > |> > |> Whatever. But it was not re-invented. It was re-implemented.
|> > |> > |
|> > |> > | To you intentionally compete in the Dimbulb competition, or do you
|> > |> > | come by it naturally?
|> > |> >
|> > |> > Your response makes no sense. Do you not understand the difference between
|> > |> > invention and implementation?
|> > |>
|> > |> Do you not understand the purpose of quotation marks? Do you not
|> > |> understand that you're an ass' behind?
|> > |
|> > |
|> > | They never do.
|> >
|> > I'm glad to see the two of you together.
|>
|> 1000 miles isn't together.
|>
|> > Now all I need to do is get the other 4 of your type
|>
|> where "your type" == people who have pointed out your arrogance over
|> your ignorance
|>
|> > from other newsgroups to job you, and you all
|> > will be together.
|>
|> Whatever that means. Phil, you've totally lost it.
|>
|> --
|> Keith
|
|
| Keith, they would chew his sorry ass up, and spit it out on SED.
There's only about 6 of you I've seen on the whole Usenet.
| In article <[email protected]>, phil-news-
| [email protected] says...
|> | In article <[email protected]>, phil-news-
|> | [email protected] says...
|> |> | In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
|> |> | says...
|> | <snip>
|> |> |> | One could do an in-USA secure web browser too, just don't get caught
|> |> |> | "exporting" it (laptop). Since the Internet is "free", the whole
|> |> |> | thing wend down in flames, silly stories about kids in their
|> |> |> | bedrooms or not.
|> |> |>
|> |> |> Whatever. But it was not re-invented. It was re-implemented.
|> |> |
|> |> | To you intentionally compete in the Dimbulb competition, or do you
|> |> | come by it naturally?
|> |>
|> |> Your response makes no sense. Do you not understand the difference between
|> |> invention and implementation?
|> |
|> | Do you not understand the purpose of quotation marks? Do you not
|> | understand that you're an ass' behind?
|>
|> Of course I understand quotation marks. What do they have to do with
|> invention vs. implementation?
|
| Good grief Gert! I thought you could at least figure that out,
| after having it held right in front of your stupid face! Wow,
| you're dense!
Really? You make up some concept about quotation marks and think it relates
to invention vs. innovation, and just expect people to read your mind?
| [email protected] says...
|> | In article <[email protected]>, phil-news-
|> | [email protected] says...
|> |> | In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
|> |> | says...
|> | <snip>
|> |> |> | One could do an in-USA secure web browser too, just don't get caught
|> |> |> | "exporting" it (laptop). Since the Internet is "free", the whole
|> |> |> | thing wend down in flames, silly stories about kids in their
|> |> |> | bedrooms or not.
|> |> |>
|> |> |> Whatever. But it was not re-invented. It was re-implemented.
|> |> |
|> |> | To you intentionally compete in the Dimbulb competition, or do you
|> |> | come by it naturally?
|> |>
|> |> Your response makes no sense. Do you not understand the difference between
|> |> invention and implementation?
|> |
|> | Do you not understand the purpose of quotation marks? Do you not
|> | understand that you're an ass' behind?
|>
|> Of course I understand quotation marks. What do they have to do with
|> invention vs. implementation?
|
| Good grief Gert! I thought you could at least figure that out,
| after having it held right in front of your stupid face! Wow,
| you're dense!
Really? You make up some concept about quotation marks and think it relates
to invention vs. innovation, and just expect people to read your mind?
| [email protected] wrote:
|>
|> There's only about 6 of you I've seen on the whole Usenet.
|
|
| Then you've either lead a 'very' sheltered online life, or you're the
| biggest liar on usenet. Either way, you can't be trusted.
There may well be a lot more people on Usenet that act like idiots and
make personal attacks on people whose post they dislike, and assert that
there are errors without being specific in pointing them out, or don't
understand the logic of a different context in which the post applies,
but I don't read that many groups to have encountered that many of you.
I do periodically have disagreements with many people. I win some and
I lose some. But what I have with idiots like you just degenerates into
a little spat because you guys don't really care to approach the facts
and logic (afraid to lose?). All this experience you supposedly have
means nothing to me anymore because I have no way to know if what you
post fits within it, or if you are just mouthing off at someone because
you don't like them or what they say.
|>
|> There's only about 6 of you I've seen on the whole Usenet.
|
|
| Then you've either lead a 'very' sheltered online life, or you're the
| biggest liar on usenet. Either way, you can't be trusted.
There may well be a lot more people on Usenet that act like idiots and
make personal attacks on people whose post they dislike, and assert that
there are errors without being specific in pointing them out, or don't
understand the logic of a different context in which the post applies,
but I don't read that many groups to have encountered that many of you.
I do periodically have disagreements with many people. I win some and
I lose some. But what I have with idiots like you just degenerates into
a little spat because you guys don't really care to approach the facts
and logic (afraid to lose?). All this experience you supposedly have
means nothing to me anymore because I have no way to know if what you
post fits within it, or if you are just mouthing off at someone because
you don't like them or what they say.
K
krw
phil-news- said:
No, I expect people here to be half-literate.
K
krw
phil-news- said:| krw wrote:
|>
|> In article <[email protected]>, phil-news-
|> [email protected] says...
|> > | krw wrote:
|> > |>
|> > |> In article <[email protected]>, phil-news-
|> > |> [email protected] says...
|> > |> > | In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
|> > |> > | says...
|> > |> <snip>
|> > |> > |> | One could do an in-USA secure web browser too, just don't get caught
|> > |> > |> | "exporting" it (laptop). Since the Internet is "free", the whole
|> > |> > |> | thing wend down in flames, silly stories about kids in their
|> > |> > |> | bedrooms or not.
|> > |> > |>
|> > |> > |> Whatever. But it was not re-invented. It was re-implemented.
|> > |> > |
|> > |> > | To you intentionally compete in the Dimbulb competition, or do you
|> > |> > | come by it naturally?
|> > |> >
|> > |> > Your response makes no sense. Do you not understand the difference between
|> > |> > invention and implementation?
|> > |>
|> > |> Do you not understand the purpose of quotation marks? Do you not
|> > |> understand that you're an ass' behind?
|> > |
|> > |
|> > | They never do.
|> >
|> > I'm glad to see the two of you together.
|>
|> 1000 miles isn't together.
|>
|> > Now all I need to do is get the other 4 of your type
|>
|> where "your type" == people who have pointed out your arrogance over
|> your ignorance
|>
|> > from other newsgroups to job you, and you all
|> > will be together.
|>
|> Whatever that means. Phil, you've totally lost it.
|>
|> --
|> Keith
|
|
| Keith, they would chew his sorry ass up, and spit it out on SED.
There's only about 6 of you I've seen on the whole Usenet.
Crap, Phil! You oughta get your eyes checked. I only see one
MikeT.
|> There's only about 6 of you I've seen on the whole Usenet.
|
| Crap, Phil! You oughta get your eyes checked. I only see one
| MikeT.
The "you" is the general class of people that are acting like jerks.
You ([email protected]) are one of them. There's the bud guy here.
The rest are in other newsgroups.
|
| Crap, Phil! You oughta get your eyes checked. I only see one
| MikeT.
The "you" is the general class of people that are acting like jerks.
You ([email protected]) are one of them. There's the bud guy here.
The rest are in other newsgroups.
| In article <[email protected]>, phil-news-
| [email protected] says...
|> | In article <[email protected]>, phil-news-
|> | [email protected] says...
|> |> | In article <[email protected]>, phil-news-
|> |> | [email protected] says...
|> |> |> | In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
|> |> |> | says...
|> |> | <snip>
|> |> |> |> | One could do an in-USA secure web browser too, just don't get caught
|> |> |> |> | "exporting" it (laptop). Since the Internet is "free", the whole
|> |> |> |> | thing wend down in flames, silly stories about kids in their
|> |> |> |> | bedrooms or not.
|> |> |> |>
|> |> |> |> Whatever. But it was not re-invented. It was re-implemented.
|> |> |> |
|> |> |> | To you intentionally compete in the Dimbulb competition, or do you
|> |> |> | come by it naturally?
|> |> |>
|> |> |> Your response makes no sense. Do you not understand the difference between
|> |> |> invention and implementation?
|> |> |
|> |> | Do you not understand the purpose of quotation marks? Do you not
|> |> | understand that you're an ass' behind?
|> |>
|> |> Of course I understand quotation marks. What do they have to do with
|> |> invention vs. implementation?
|> |
|> | Good grief Gert! I thought you could at least figure that out,
|> | after having it held right in front of your stupid face! Wow,
|> | you're dense!
|>
|> Really? You make up some concept about quotation marks and think it relates
|> to invention vs. innovation, and just expect people to read your mind?
|
| No, I expect people here to be half-literate.
So then don't make stuff up.
| [email protected] says...
|> | In article <[email protected]>, phil-news-
|> | [email protected] says...
|> |> | In article <[email protected]>, phil-news-
|> |> | [email protected] says...
|> |> |> | In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
|> |> |> | says...
|> |> | <snip>
|> |> |> |> | One could do an in-USA secure web browser too, just don't get caught
|> |> |> |> | "exporting" it (laptop). Since the Internet is "free", the whole
|> |> |> |> | thing wend down in flames, silly stories about kids in their
|> |> |> |> | bedrooms or not.
|> |> |> |>
|> |> |> |> Whatever. But it was not re-invented. It was re-implemented.
|> |> |> |
|> |> |> | To you intentionally compete in the Dimbulb competition, or do you
|> |> |> | come by it naturally?
|> |> |>
|> |> |> Your response makes no sense. Do you not understand the difference between
|> |> |> invention and implementation?
|> |> |
|> |> | Do you not understand the purpose of quotation marks? Do you not
|> |> | understand that you're an ass' behind?
|> |>
|> |> Of course I understand quotation marks. What do they have to do with
|> |> invention vs. implementation?
|> |
|> | Good grief Gert! I thought you could at least figure that out,
|> | after having it held right in front of your stupid face! Wow,
|> | you're dense!
|>
|> Really? You make up some concept about quotation marks and think it relates
|> to invention vs. innovation, and just expect people to read your mind?
|
| No, I expect people here to be half-literate.
So then don't make stuff up.
K
krw
phil-news- said:| In article <[email protected]>, phil-news-
| [email protected] says...
|> | krw wrote:
|> |>
|> |> In article <[email protected]>, phil-news-
|> |> [email protected] says...
|> |> > | In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
|> |> > | says...
|> |> <snip>
|> |> > |> | One could do an in-USA secure web browser too, just don't get caught
|> |> > |> | "exporting" it (laptop). Since the Internet is "free", the whole
|> |> > |> | thing wend down in flames, silly stories about kids in their
|> |> > |> | bedrooms or not.
|> |> > |>
|> |> > |> Whatever. But it was not re-invented. It was re-implemented.
|> |> > |
|> |> > | To you intentionally compete in the Dimbulb competition, or do you
|> |> > | come by it naturally?
|> |> >
|> |> > Your response makes no sense. Do you not understand the difference between
|> |> > invention and implementation?
|> |>
|> |> Do you not understand the purpose of quotation marks? Do you not
|> |> understand that you're an ass' behind?
|> |
|> |
|> | They never do.
|>
|> I'm glad to see the two of you together.
|
| 1000 miles isn't together.
|
|> Now all I need to do is get the other 4 of your type
|
| where "your type" == people who have pointed out your arrogance over
| your ignorance
Sure, describe it as that.
Why, isn't that kind of you. BTW, I did.
What can I tell you; the truth hurts.
MANY here have. Apparently it flies way over your head. ...or
perhaps through your ears.
| MANY here have. Apparently it flies way over your head. ...or
| perhaps through your ears.
Let's see ... you, Michael A. Terrell, and that bud-- person. People that
don't speak specific. Ooooh ... I'm so impressed ... not.
| perhaps through your ears.
Let's see ... you, Michael A. Terrell, and that bud-- person. People that
don't speak specific. Ooooh ... I'm so impressed ... not.
| Google: ka9wgn You find 13,500 "cases" of Phil, sliced anyway you like
| it! ;-)
I'm a fun target for people that like to get a response because I do
respond.
| it! ;-)
I'm a fun target for people that like to get a response because I do
respond.
| [email protected] wrote:
|>
|>
|> | Google: ka9wgn You find 13,500 "cases" of Phil, sliced anyway you like
|> | it! ;-)
|>
|> I'm a fun target for people that like to get a response because I do
|> respond.
|
|
| So what? You are almost always wrong.
If you think that is the case, then why did you pick this particular topic
to accuse me of being wrong about (and still not be specific about exactly
what was wrong nor suggest an alternative "correct" statement)? I know
you have picked some others, too. But if your assertion that I am almost
always wrong is true, and given that you have only made these accusations
on a few of my posts, then you must have skipped over quite many that you
have thus left unchallenged.
Maybe what you should do is look at every post I make that is not part of
a thread or subthread you are already "debating" me in, and narrow down a
very specific point (or points) you think I am making that is wrong, and
post what you believe is the correct statement.
For example, if I post:
1 + 1 = 3
You would following up with:
Phil, your statement "1 + 1 = 3" is incorrect. The correct statement
would be "1 + 1 = 2".
But be sure you get the context correct. If I am posting something that is
intentionally using an error as an example, you would look silly to refute
it in that context. For example I might post (in response to something):
That would be as wrong as saying 1 + 1 = 3.
Then you should look at the context, too. Perhaps in light of that context
you might find the relationship being wrong. If so, explain that.
The important points are to always be sure you clearly understand what the
context is. If in doubt, ask. If you got the context wrong, your could
look silly refuting my post. And always be as specific as you possibly
can be. Narrow things down to exactly the points that are wrong within
the working context.
|>
|>
|> | Google: ka9wgn You find 13,500 "cases" of Phil, sliced anyway you like
|> | it! ;-)
|>
|> I'm a fun target for people that like to get a response because I do
|> respond.
|
|
| So what? You are almost always wrong.
If you think that is the case, then why did you pick this particular topic
to accuse me of being wrong about (and still not be specific about exactly
what was wrong nor suggest an alternative "correct" statement)? I know
you have picked some others, too. But if your assertion that I am almost
always wrong is true, and given that you have only made these accusations
on a few of my posts, then you must have skipped over quite many that you
have thus left unchallenged.
Maybe what you should do is look at every post I make that is not part of
a thread or subthread you are already "debating" me in, and narrow down a
very specific point (or points) you think I am making that is wrong, and
post what you believe is the correct statement.
For example, if I post:
1 + 1 = 3
You would following up with:
Phil, your statement "1 + 1 = 3" is incorrect. The correct statement
would be "1 + 1 = 2".
But be sure you get the context correct. If I am posting something that is
intentionally using an error as an example, you would look silly to refute
it in that context. For example I might post (in response to something):
That would be as wrong as saying 1 + 1 = 3.
Then you should look at the context, too. Perhaps in light of that context
you might find the relationship being wrong. If so, explain that.
The important points are to always be sure you clearly understand what the
context is. If in doubt, ask. If you got the context wrong, your could
look silly refuting my post. And always be as specific as you possibly
can be. Narrow things down to exactly the points that are wrong within
the working context.
| [email protected] wrote:
|>
|> | [email protected] wrote:
|> |>
|> |>
|> |> | Google: ka9wgn You find 13,500 "cases" of Phil, sliced anyway you like
|> |> | it! ;-)
|> |>
|> |> I'm a fun target for people that like to get a response because I do
|> |> respond.
|> |
|> |
|> | So what? You are almost always wrong.
|>
|> If you think that is the case, then why did you pick this particular topic
|> to accuse me of being wrong about (and still not be specific about exactly
|> what was wrong nor suggest an alternative "correct" statement)? I know
|> you have picked some others, too. But if your assertion that I am almost
|> always wrong is true, and given that you have only made these accusations
|> on a few of my posts, then you must have skipped over quite many that you
|> have thus left unchallenged.
|>
|> Maybe what you should do is look at every post I make that is not part of
|> a thread or subthread you are already "debating" me in, and narrow down a
|> very specific point (or points) you think I am making that is wrong, and
|> post what you believe is the correct statement.
|>
|> For example, if I post:
|>
|> 1 + 1 = 3
|>
|> You would following up with:
|>
|> Phil, your statement "1 + 1 = 3" is incorrect. The correct statement
|> would be "1 + 1 = 2".
|
|
|
| Because almost everything you post is wrong. You NEVER have ANYONE
| backing up your wild claims.
I don't see anyone backing up YOUR wild claims. In fact, it is very rare
that anyone does a followup to say "yeah, that guy is right, I back him up
with his wild claims". Even take "wild" out of that sentence, and there
is no common practice of such. That's the way it has been on Usenet since
I started using it in 1986.
|>
|> | [email protected] wrote:
|> |>
|> |>
|> |> | Google: ka9wgn You find 13,500 "cases" of Phil, sliced anyway you like
|> |> | it! ;-)
|> |>
|> |> I'm a fun target for people that like to get a response because I do
|> |> respond.
|> |
|> |
|> | So what? You are almost always wrong.
|>
|> If you think that is the case, then why did you pick this particular topic
|> to accuse me of being wrong about (and still not be specific about exactly
|> what was wrong nor suggest an alternative "correct" statement)? I know
|> you have picked some others, too. But if your assertion that I am almost
|> always wrong is true, and given that you have only made these accusations
|> on a few of my posts, then you must have skipped over quite many that you
|> have thus left unchallenged.
|>
|> Maybe what you should do is look at every post I make that is not part of
|> a thread or subthread you are already "debating" me in, and narrow down a
|> very specific point (or points) you think I am making that is wrong, and
|> post what you believe is the correct statement.
|>
|> For example, if I post:
|>
|> 1 + 1 = 3
|>
|> You would following up with:
|>
|> Phil, your statement "1 + 1 = 3" is incorrect. The correct statement
|> would be "1 + 1 = 2".
|
|
|
| Because almost everything you post is wrong. You NEVER have ANYONE
| backing up your wild claims.
I don't see anyone backing up YOUR wild claims. In fact, it is very rare
that anyone does a followup to say "yeah, that guy is right, I back him up
with his wild claims". Even take "wild" out of that sentence, and there
is no common practice of such. That's the way it has been on Usenet since
I started using it in 1986.
Similar threads
