Another Fogel Lie from the Archives

On Feb 8, 6:35*pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
Frank Krygowski opined:

Defamation is different from disagreement, Tom. *We've got a small,
juvenile crew on r.b.* that thinks that thread titles something like
"_______ is a scumbag" are socially acceptable.

I then asked Krygowski:

Apparently, you have no problem with guys who forward, unsolicited,
private emails (as a form of character assassination), eh?

Tom Sherman snipped/edited my question:

Apparently, you have no problem with guys who forward, unsolicited,
private emails...

*and then replied to his version of my question:
I will not purchase products from a certain bicycle company since one of
the people who they chose to represent them posted one of my emails on a
public forum.

Your snipping changed the essence of my question. Why did you do that?

I removed what was irrelevant to my response.


You've got this all wrong: by snipping you changed the very essence of
my question. You are answering a question I did not ask.


I do not see why this
would be an issue, unless Frank Krygowski did in,


Who did Krygowski do in?


since that is to whom
the question was directed.

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
On Feb 8, 6:35 pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
Frank Krygowski opined:
Defamation is different from disagreement, Tom. We've got a small,
juvenile crew on r.b.* that thinks that thread titles something like
"_______ is a scumbag" are socially acceptable.
I then asked Krygowski:
Apparently, you have no problem with guys who forward, unsolicited,
private emails (as a form of character assassination), eh?
Tom Sherman snipped/edited my question:
Apparently, you have no problem with guys who forward, unsolicited,
private emails...
and then replied to his version of my question:
I will not purchase products from a certain bicycle company since one of
the people who they chose to represent them posted one of my emails on a
public forum.
Your snipping changed the essence of my question. Why did you do that?
I removed what was irrelevant to my response.


You've got this all wrong: by snipping you changed the very essence of
my question. You are answering a question I did not ask.

That is correct. But Ozark Bicycle's question was addressed to Frank
Krygowski, not me.


I do not see why this
would be an issue, unless Frank Krygowski did in,


Who did Krygowski do in?

The butler?

since that is to whom
the question was directed.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

On Feb 8, 9:45*pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
On Feb 8, 6:35 pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
Frank Krygowski opined:
Defamation is different from disagreement, Tom. *We've got a small,
juvenile crew on r.b.* that thinks that thread titles something like
"_______ is a scumbag" are socially acceptable.
I then asked Krygowski:
Apparently, you have no problem with guys who forward, unsolicited,
private emails (as a form of character assassination), eh?
Tom Sherman snipped/edited my question:
Apparently, you have no problem with guys who forward, unsolicited,
private emails...
*and then replied to his version of my question:
I will not purchase products from a certain bicycle company since one of
the people who they chose to represent them posted one of my emails on a
public forum.
Your snipping changed the essence of my question. Why did you do that?
I removed what was irrelevant to my response.

You've got this all wrong: by snipping you changed the very essence of
my question. You are answering a question I did not ask.

That is correct. But Ozark Bicycle's question was addressed to Frank
Krygowski, not me.


Which simply compounds your faux pas.

As an example:

I ask: "Bob, what time is it?"

And *Tom* replies: "Time to buy new tires."

See?





I do not see why this
would be an issue, unless Frank Krygowski did in,

Who did Krygowski do in?

The butler?

since that is to whom
the question was directed.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

On Feb 8, 9:45*pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
On Feb 8, 6:35 pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
Frank Krygowski opined:
Defamation is different from disagreement, Tom. *We've got a small,
juvenile crew on r.b.* that thinks that thread titles something like
"_______ is a scumbag" are socially acceptable.
I then asked Krygowski:
Apparently, you have no problem with guys who forward, unsolicited,
private emails (as a form of character assassination), eh?
Tom Sherman snipped/edited my question:
Apparently, you have no problem with guys who forward, unsolicited,
private emails...
*and then replied to his version of my question:
I will not purchase products from a certain bicycle company since one of
the people who they chose to represent them posted one of my emails on a
public forum.
Your snipping changed the essence of my question. Why did you do that?
I removed what was irrelevant to my response.

You've got this all wrong: by snipping you changed the very essence of
my question. You are answering a question I did not ask.

That is correct. But Ozark Bicycle's question was addressed to Frank
Krygowski, not me.





I do not see why this
would be an issue, unless Frank Krygowski did in,

Who did Krygowski do in?

The butler?

Did he gas him?

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
On Feb 8, 9:45 pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
On Feb 8, 6:35 pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
Frank Krygowski opined:
Defamation is different from disagreement, Tom. We've got a small,
juvenile crew on r.b.* that thinks that thread titles something like
"_______ is a scumbag" are socially acceptable.
I then asked Krygowski:
Apparently, you have no problem with guys who forward, unsolicited,
private emails (as a form of character assassination), eh?
Tom Sherman snipped/edited my question:
Apparently, you have no problem with guys who forward, unsolicited,
private emails...
and then replied to his version of my question:
I will not purchase products from a certain bicycle company since one of
the people who they chose to represent them posted one of my emails on a
public forum.
Your snipping changed the essence of my question. Why did you do that?
I removed what was irrelevant to my response.
You've got this all wrong: by snipping you changed the very essence of
my question. You are answering a question I did not ask.
That is correct. But Ozark Bicycle's question was addressed to Frank
Krygowski, not me.


Which simply compounds your faux pas.

As an example:

I ask: "Bob, what time is it?"

And *Tom* replies: "Time to buy new tires."

See?

This is not a formalized debate where every response has to precisely
answer a posed question. Sheesh!

Here is a clue - my response was never intended to be a direct answer to
Ozark Bicycle's question, as should have been clear from the context.
Sheesh, again.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

On Feb 8, 9:59*pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
On Feb 8, 9:45 pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
On Feb 8, 6:35 pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
Frank Krygowski opined:
Defamation is different from disagreement, Tom. *We've got a small,
juvenile crew on r.b.* that thinks that thread titles something like
"_______ is a scumbag" are socially acceptable.
I then asked Krygowski:
Apparently, you have no problem with guys who forward, unsolicited,
private emails (as a form of character assassination), eh?
Tom Sherman snipped/edited my question:
Apparently, you have no problem with guys who forward, unsolicited,
private emails...
*and then replied to his version of my question:
I will not purchase products from a certain bicycle company since one of
the people who they chose to represent them posted one of my emails on a
public forum.
Your snipping changed the essence of my question. Why did you do that?
I removed what was irrelevant to my response.
You've got this all wrong: by snipping you changed the very essence of
my question. You are answering a question I did not ask.
That is correct. But Ozark Bicycle's question was addressed to Frank
Krygowski, not me.

Which simply compounds your faux pas.

As an example:

I ask: "Bob, what time is it?"

And *Tom* replies: "Time to buy new tires."

See?

This is not a formalized debate where every response has to precisely
answer a posed question. Sheesh!

If you want to answer a question not asked, find another way to do so.
Don't *change* the question someone has asked by editing it.



Here is a clue - my response was never intended to be a direct answer to
Ozark Bicycle's question, as should have been clear from the context.


The only thing clear was that you changed the question.


Sheesh, again.


You have great difficulty admitting error, don't you?

On Feb 9, 4:08*am, Ozark Bicycle
wrote:
On Feb 8, 9:59*pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:



Ozark Bicycle wrote:
On Feb 8, 9:45 pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
On Feb 8, 6:35 pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
Frank Krygowski opined:
Defamation is different from disagreement, Tom. *We've got a small,
juvenile crew on r.b.* that thinks that thread titles something like
"_______ is a scumbag" are socially acceptable.
I then asked Krygowski:
Apparently, you have no problem with guys who forward, unsolicited,
private emails (as a form of character assassination), eh?
Tom Sherman snipped/edited my question:
Apparently, you have no problem with guys who forward, unsolicited,
private emails...
*and then replied to his version of my question:
I will not purchase products from a certain bicycle company since one of
the people who they chose to represent them posted one of my emails on a
public forum.
Your snipping changed the essence of my question. Why did you do that?
I removed what was irrelevant to my response.
You've got this all wrong: by snipping you changed the very essence of
my question. You are answering a question I did not ask.
That is correct. But Ozark Bicycle's question was addressed to Frank
Krygowski, not me.

Which simply compounds your faux pas.

As an example:

I ask: "Bob, what time is it?"

And *Tom* replies: "Time to buy new tires."

See?

This is not a formalized debate where every response has to precisely
answer a posed question. Sheesh!

If you want to answer a question not asked, find another way to do so.
Don't *change* the question someone has asked by editing it.



Here is a clue - my response was never intended to be a direct answer to
Ozark Bicycle's question, as should have been clear from the context.

The only thing clear was that you changed the question.

Sheesh, again.

You have great difficulty admitting error, don't you?

Cool it, guys. There's nothing to win here and meanwhile you're giving
aid and comfort to the enemy by dissension in camp.

Andre Jute

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
...
If you want to answer a question not asked,...

I will do so if I feel like it.

Don't *change* the question someone has asked by editing it.

Does Ozark Bicycle know what an ellipsis is?

Does Ozark Bicycle know that he is not the group moderator?

Here is a clue - my response was never intended to be a direct answer to
Ozark Bicycle's question, as should have been clear from the context.


The only thing clear was that you changed the question.

Well, duh! See above about the ellipsis.


Sheesh, again.


You have great difficulty admitting error, don't you?

What error? What I did was deliberate. I never intended to answer Ozark
Bicycle's question exactly as posted, especially since it was directed
to Frank Krygowski. And yes, I am aware that I am not Frank Krygowski.

For the third time, Sheesh!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Andre Jute wrote:
On Feb 9, 4:08 am, Ozark Bicycle
wrote:
On Feb 8, 9:59 pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:



Ozark Bicycle wrote:
On Feb 8, 9:45 pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
On Feb 8, 6:35 pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
Frank Krygowski opined:
Defamation is different from disagreement, Tom. We've got a small,
juvenile crew on r.b.* that thinks that thread titles something like
"_______ is a scumbag" are socially acceptable.
I then asked Krygowski:
Apparently, you have no problem with guys who forward, unsolicited,
private emails (as a form of character assassination), eh?
Tom Sherman snipped/edited my question:
Apparently, you have no problem with guys who forward, unsolicited,
private emails...
and then replied to his version of my question:
I will not purchase products from a certain bicycle company since one of
the people who they chose to represent them posted one of my emails on a
public forum.
Your snipping changed the essence of my question. Why did you do that?
I removed what was irrelevant to my response.
You've got this all wrong: by snipping you changed the very essence of
my question. You are answering a question I did not ask.
That is correct. But Ozark Bicycle's question was addressed to Frank
Krygowski, not me.
Which simply compounds your faux pas.
As an example:
I ask: "Bob, what time is it?"
And *Tom* replies: "Time to buy new tires."
See?
This is not a formalized debate where every response has to precisely
answer a posed question. Sheesh!
If you want to answer a question not asked, find another way to do so.
Don't *change* the question someone has asked by editing it.



Here is a clue - my response was never intended to be a direct answer to
Ozark Bicycle's question, as should have been clear from the context.
The only thing clear was that you changed the question.

Sheesh, again.
You have great difficulty admitting error, don't you?

Cool it, guys. There's nothing to win here and meanwhile you're giving
aid and comfort to the enemy by dissension in camp.

I believe that Ozark Bicycle would find it offensive to be considered in
the same camp with myself, based on the evidence of his past posts.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

On Feb 8, 10:57*pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
...
If you want to answer a question not asked,...

I will do so if I feel like it.

And I will remind you that you are being an ass.



Don't *change* the question someone has asked by editing it.

Does Ozark Bicycle know what an ellipsis is?

Does Ozark Bicycle know that he is not the group moderator?

Are you, Sherman? Or shall I remind you that you are not the group
moderator the next time you nitpick regarding top posting, how a post
"looks", quoting heirarchy, etc. And the next time you tell somone to
"get a real newsreader".

Clearly, you are more concerned about form, than about content.



Here is a clue - my response was never intended to be a direct answer to
Ozark Bicycle's question, as should have been clear from the context.

I don't give a crap about your response. I do object, strenuously, to
your stealth editing of my question. Leave the question intact and do
whatever you want, but the editing is just not right.



The only thing clear was that you changed the question.

Well, duh! See above about the ellipsis.



Sheesh, again.

You have great difficulty admitting error, don't you?

What error? What I did was deliberate. I never intended to answer Ozark
Bicycle's question exactly as posted, especially since it was directed
to Frank Krygowski. And yes, I am aware that I am not Frank Krygowski.

For the third time, Sheesh!