#211
|
|||
|
|||
What do you do?
"Ewan" wrote in message
... On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 18:52:12 -0000, "Clive George" wrote: "Ewan" wrote in message ... So far from believing that everyone is out to get me, I take the fact that no one is saying anything about your dishonest editing as evidence that they actually agree with my view of it. If they agreed with yours, they would, according to past precedent, defend a valued group member and pile in to explain why you were right and I was wrong. Go on, post some links to previous instances then. I'm guessing in those cases the subject under discussion was rather more interesting than the one you and Ian are currently on about. The reason neither of you have got the group leaping in to support you is that your discussion has become so immensely tedious that there's no point in doing so. But not so tedious that you've stopped reading it? It takes me hardly any time to skim and see if there's anything interesting. And I've got a lot more stamina for this sort of thing than a lot of people (but rather less than you/Ian). I'm afraid the rest of your post isn't interesting, so I've snipped it and not replied. There was a brief interlude which was slightly, which was the bit about the group dynamics quoted above, but the rest is merely a return to the same old stuff. cheers, clive |
Ads |
#212
|
|||
|
|||
What do you do?
Ewan wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 22:24:56 +0000, Don Whybrow wrote: So, anyone that posts against you is by default one of "them". No, just someone who is so shallow and petty that they will ignore dishonest quoting and make fatuous comments about my counting when it would be plain to anyone with the slightest modicum of intelligence that it was whether *other* people realised they needed to count that was the problem. Nice of you to be concerned about how other people manage to read posts on Usenet. I don't know how we have managed all these years by simply counting. Until you start behaving like an adult around here your opinions count for nothing in my book. Do you really think I care what small minded numptie like you thinks? So small minded that my only contribution to a discussion is to complain about the use of different units of measurement when a conversion factor is clearly explained? Do you really think I care what a ignoramus like you thinks? Do try and get over yourself. Do try and educate yourself. -- Don Whybrow Sequi Bonum Non Time "This seems like a case where we need to shoot the messenger." (Charlie Kaufman on Cypherpunks list) |
#213
|
|||
|
|||
What do you do?
Ewan wrote:
The point is that most people have the courtesy to quote so that the first piece of text to which they respond is from the poster identified at the top of the post. No, do go and educate yourself on Usenet usage before trying to teach others how it should be done. Only the people directly involved will realise that the post was made by a dim wit who can't follow the normal procedure, and hence that there is any need to count ''s. See above. -- Don Whybrow Sequi Bonum Non Time "I fought the Dharma, and the Dharma won." (Allen Ginsberg) |
#214
|
|||
|
|||
What do you do?
Ewan wrote:
On 07 Feb 2007 17:58:15 GMT, Ian Smith wrote: On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 16:00:25 GMT, Ewan wrote: On 07 Feb 2007 14:58:29 GMT, Ian Smith wrote: Watch it Ewan, you're deliberately mis-attributing again. You quite clearly said that teh first poster named is expected to have said the first thing quoted. I did not say "Note also, BTW,..." I believe I mentioned that jtaylor says it's not important, so don't you go worrying your little head about it. I'll take that And use it as an excuse to for the umpteenth time, evade the real issue: Dishonesty in quoting, from Ewan. No, can't be. BTW Mr James, you could do worse than heed the advice below. -- Don Whybrow Sequi Bonum Non Time If you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop diggin'. |
#215
|
|||
|
|||
What do you do?
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 19:50:46 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote: I'm afraid the rest of your post isn't interesting, so I've snipped it and not replied. There was a brief interlude which was slightly, which was the bit about the group dynamics quoted above, but the rest is merely a return to the same old stuff. Sure it's old stuff but have you not noticed that not a single person has actually addressed it - not one? It's the issue that started this whole sorry mess and yet no one will attempt to either justify or castigate the quoting in question in a straight forward, unemotional manner - why is that? Once again, for context: What was said: ================================================== ================================ TR But over 40 pedestrians a year killed on the pavement and a further 80 TR on pedestrian crossings which is more or less the same as the number of TR cyclists killed on the whole road system. EJ There are a hell of a lot more pedestrians than cyclists. EJ Coming up with a statistic such as the one you just did is nothing more than EJ attempting a smoke and mirrors trick. EJ The above should not be taken to indicate that I agree or disagree that EJ cycling is more dangerous than walking. The statistics simply aren't EJ available. ================================================== ================================= How you quoted and replied. ================================================== ================================ TR But over 40 pedestrians a year killed on the pavement EJ Coming up with a statistic such as the one you just did is nothing more than EJ attempting a smoke and mirrors trick. IS I don't think it is. It's a specific (and accurate) refutation of the IS assertion "the pedestrian on the pavement is safe from the hazard" IS (of motor vehicles). Isn't it? ================================================== ================================ |
#216
|
|||
|
|||
What do you do?
"Ewan" wrote in message
... On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 19:50:46 -0000, "Clive George" wrote: I'm afraid the rest of your post isn't interesting, so I've snipped it and not replied. There was a brief interlude which was slightly, which was the bit about the group dynamics quoted above, but the rest is merely a return to the same old stuff. Sure it's old stuff but have you not noticed that not a single person has actually addressed it - not one? Several people did when this spat started, but you just said they were all part of a nasty clique or something (CBA to go and actually look this up though). It's the issue that started this whole sorry mess and yet no one will attempt to either justify or castigate the quoting in question in a straight forward, unemotional manner - why is that? I've told you twice now : here it is for the third and final time. It's because it's not interesting enough to warrant an answer. Nobody cares. Get over it. snip cut and paste which I've seen far too many times already Repeatedly posting the same thing doesn't increase the likelyhood of you getting an answer. In fact, it's more likely to achieve the opposite. It's a mark of intelligence that one learns from things which don't work - the fact that nobody's answering your questions indicates you either need to try another approach, or give up. clive |
#217
|
|||
|
|||
What do you do?
David Damerell wrote:
Quoting Tony Raven : Roger wrote on 05/02/2007 16:05 +0100: you did mess with the quoting and now you're busted. Funny isn't it how Ewan turns up having only ever posted in urc and only in the last 48hrs and then you turn up having never posted anywhere before to defend him. Are you related? That struck me. Both "Ewan" and "Roger" post via news.individual.net; both of them have defective punctuation and spelling. Of course, I am sure it is pure coincidence... the german sever is popular as a text only, does a fair bit of filtering well worth the cheap fee. Roger uses text ish speach and thunderbird. Ewan uses fort i'd say not unless he can really be assed which i'd say not. roger |
#218
|
|||
|
|||
What do you do?
Buck wrote:
On 2007-02-07 08:38:35 +0000, Tony Raven said: p.k. wrote on 07/02/2007 08:09 +0100: I and most of the group of people I cycle with, as an example, cycle many miles off road and on quiet roads. (3 regular outings a week: 60miles total. Weekends on Chilterns in a day, C2C, W2W, to Brighton next weekend) but most of us studiously avoid cycling in London proper or out of town on the A3 because of the dangers from motor traffic. Eh? London has 12% of the UK population and a higher level of cycling than the UK average but only 6% of the UK cyclist deaths in the last figures. The congestion charging zone which is just about to double in size has made it even more pleasant to cycle. So where did you get this view of the dangers? It is perception, which was mentioned earlier in this thread, I cycle in London traffic a lot and find it fine, but people I speak to cite the densely packed traffic etc.. as to dangerous to cycle in. having moved into the kingston area, the traffic is a lot slower and used to bikes where i come from the roads are much faster, and less used to bikes, it would be unexpected rather than a normal experance. roger |
#219
|
|||
|
|||
What do you do?
Quoting Ewan :
I presume that if he were right and I was wrong the entire group would have piled in to defend him rather than the tiny bunch on minor posters who, like himself, ignore the original dishonest editing and witter on about trivia. Amazing. This is a bit like "the lurkers support me in email" only without the email, isn't it? "Everyone who has bothered to post thinks I'm an idiot; therefore there must be a vast groundswell of silent support." *plonk* Bored now. -- OPTIONS=name:Kirsty,menustyle:C,female,lit_corrido r,standout,time,showexp,hilit e_pet,catname:Akane,dogname:Ryoga,fruitkonomiyak i,pickup_types:"!$?=/,scores: 5 top/2 around,color,boulder:0,autoquiver,autodig,disclose :yiyayvygyc,pickup_bu rden:burdened,!cmdassist,msg_window:reversed,!spar kle,horsename:Rumiko,showrace |
#220
|
|||
|
|||
What do you do?
In article , David Damerell wrote:
Quoting Ewan : I presume that if he were right and I was wrong the entire group would have piled in to defend him rather than the tiny bunch on minor posters who, like himself, ignore the original dishonest editing and witter on about trivia. Amazing. This is a bit like "the lurkers support me in email" only without the email, isn't it? "Everyone who has bothered to post thinks I'm an idiot; therefore there must be a vast groundswell of silent support." *plonk* Bored now. Staggering. I was bored too, but on the faint chance he'll see sense: Ewan, you presume wrongly. I didn't bother posting because it was obvious you were an idiot without anyone else joining in. I very much doubt you'll find anyone who agrees with you at all (ignoring posters we've never seen before with suspiciously similar style). |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|