Post #59,287
10/24/02 10:58:49 PM
|
I'm sorry, was I talking to you?
Or do you have some personal problem where you have to inflict your opinion on topics that do not concern you?
|
Post #59,290
10/24/02 11:09:14 PM
|
Because the S/N ratio in here is abyssmal
mainly because of this pointless bickering. As such, you are involving the other members of this community, whether or not they are direct participants.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #59,301
10/24/02 11:27:53 PM
|
And he was improving it? yes/no?
Are you improving it? yes/no?
If you're not improving it, but you feel obligated to provide your opinion on it, then......
|
Post #59,302
10/24/02 11:29:37 PM
|
are you insinuating I am not improving it?
I do not post without making a point that I hope someone will get. And yes, right shifting this to hell and gone is a point of sorts. thanx, bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
"Therefore, by objective standards, the leading managers of the U.S. economy...are collectively, clinically insane." Lyndon LaRouche
|
Post #59,304
10/24/02 11:30:31 PM
|
He was attempting to.
By making his displeasure known in the hopes that you would quit the bullshit.
As I am doing. As several others have. Get the message yet?
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #59,308
10/24/02 11:37:21 PM
|
Futile hope, I'm afraid, Scott.
Once again, although best made in a different area, twit filter requested.
|
Post #59,320
10/25/02 12:03:55 AM
|
Allow me to make this perfectly clear.
What pleases or displeases him does not, has not and will not have any effect upon my actions.
If I have, somehow, failed to communicate this clearly enough, I hope I have now remedied that.
I do not subscribe to political correctness.
|
Post #59,323
10/25/02 12:16:18 AM
|
"I do not subscribe to political correctness."
Understood and accepted. Seems like the only thing you do subscribe to lately is bitchiness.
Have you ever admitted a mistake, a wrong interpretation, a misunderstood nuance? Please prove me wrong.
"A civilian gang of thieving lobbyists for the military industrial complex is running the White House. If to be against them is considered unpatriotic -- Hell, then call me a traitor." -- Hunter S. Thompson
|
Post #59,333
10/25/02 1:10:25 AM
|
Check my reply to your other post.
Check out the Truman Doctrine. Check out when it was issued.
Check out the state of Germany at that time.
Yes, I have admitted I was wrong before. When I was wrong.
|
Post #59,335
10/25/02 1:18:24 AM
|
point to a single example.
Honestly, I don't remember a single time you have have ever said "I was wrong". My memory may be faulty though.
"A civilian gang of thieving lobbyists for the military industrial complex is running the White House. If to be against them is considered unpatriotic -- Hell, then call me a traitor." -- Hunter S. Thompson
|
Post #59,348
10/25/02 2:13:12 AM
|
Those specific words?
Or words to that effect?
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=59092|Ah. I see now.]
|
Post #59,377
10/25/02 9:18:09 AM
|
That much is obvious.
But a non sequitur.
I was answering a question about S/N. wharris was attempting to improve the S/N here. You, by contrast, are not.
Have I made myself clear now?
Political correctness has very little to do with this situation, Brandioch. Please disabuse yourself of the notion that you are somehow carrying the Torch Of Brusque Illumination here. I don't believe anyone here has failed to miss your point that you believe Screamer was calling a fence a wall. What they are telling you is that 1) being pedantic to the point of irrationality is stupid and 2) shut up about it already. Unless of course you enjoy mental masturbation; we're just letting you know that the sideshow has become boring and we'd like you to get back to discussing stuff that actually matters.
This is my last statement to you on the matter. Very soon I will implement 'ignore thread', and for really asinine stuff like this, 'move (sub)thread' and 'lock (sub)thread' features. So at the very least your antics are useful in the generation of new (albeit sadly un-looked-for) features.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #59,424
10/25/02 12:15:06 PM
|
Let me put this in small words.
I do not think I can explain the Truman Doctrine and "Containment" to someone who is trying to hide the fact that he was not on the border by playing word games over whether "fence" is the same as "wall".
Clear enough?
|
Post #59,480
10/25/02 4:39:25 PM
|
Re: That much is obvious.
Very soon I will implement 'ignore thread', and for really asinine stuff like this, 'move (sub)thread' and 'lock (sub)thread' features. Pity, really, that it has to come to this.
|
Post #59,486
10/25/02 5:03:34 PM
|
Tell me about it.
I've got better things to do than clean up after people who can't keep from shitting in their own beds.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|