In article <6hmhfvoca9nu3ct2bcrs3eri2gqccj25b2@no-spam>,
craig@no-spam says...
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 08:18:47 +1000, Fish! <Fish!@no-spam>
> wrote:
>
> >> But you didn't. You replied to me, quoting things that I didn't say.
>
> >Nope, *I* didn't quote anything, you're still stuck in this face to face
> >nonsense. The program I used, happened to post what you AND the
> >previous poster had typed. You chose to think that something in no way
> >relevant to you, using no examples relevant to you, was in fact, about
> >you.
>
> So you exert no control over what your news client does? That's the
> defence prattytroll uses, when he posts lies then says that his news
> client was doing the lying. Novel, I must say.
and yet not novel, as you've just pointed out.
>
> <snip>
>
> >> Why quote anyone then?
>
> >So that those who are interested in hearing what others are saying
> >around them can join in. Why would you need to quote someone if you
> >were speaking to them face to face?
>
> Ah, you *did* quote someone. Further up, I thought you said that you
> *didn't* quote anyone.
>
> Very confusing, I must say.
>
>
So you've accepted the fact that you stupidly replied to a post that had
nothing to do with you, and have now moved on to falsly claiming further
confusion over semantics.
Interesting style of argument, no wonder you're so easily confused.
"Fish!" <Fish!@no-spam> wrote in message
news:MPG.1963a7da41268fcb9896fd@no-spam
> In article <6hmhfvoca9nu3ct2bcrs3eri2gqccj25b2@no-spam>,
> craig@no-spam says...
> > On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 08:18:47 +1000, Fish! <Fish!@no-spam>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >> But you didn't. You replied to me, quoting things that I didn't say.
> >
> > >Nope, *I* didn't quote anything, you're still stuck in this face to
face
> > >nonsense. The program I used, happened to post what you AND the
> > >previous poster had typed. You chose to think that something in no way
> > >relevant to you, using no examples relevant to you, was in fact, about
> > >you.
> >
> > So you exert no control over what your news client does? That's the
> > defence prattytroll uses, when he posts lies then says that his news
> > client was doing the lying. Novel, I must say.
>
>
> and yet not novel, as you've just pointed out.
>
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > >> Why quote anyone then?
> >
> > >So that those who are interested in hearing what others are saying
> > >around them can join in. Why would you need to quote someone if you
> > >were speaking to them face to face?
> >
> > Ah, you *did* quote someone. Further up, I thought you said that you
> > *didn't* quote anyone.
> >
> > Very confusing, I must say.
> >
> >
>
> So you've accepted the fact that you stupidly replied to a post that had
> nothing to do with you, and have now moved on to falsly claiming further
> confusion over semantics.
>
> Interesting style of argument, no wonder you're so easily confused.
>
Normally I'd just let you kids go for it, but Fish! did deny quoting anyone
in one paragraph and then only two paragraphs later said he did in fact
quote. Now let's all have a soothing herbal tea and get on with life.
Ken
In article <bdb1jr$q7ded$1@no-spam>, ken123@no-spam
says...
> "Fish!" <Fish!@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1963a7da41268fcb9896fd@no-spam
> > In article <6hmhfvoca9nu3ct2bcrs3eri2gqccj25b2@no-spam>,
> > craig@no-spam says...
> > > On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 08:18:47 +1000, Fish! <Fish!@no-spam>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >> But you didn't. You replied to me, quoting things that I didn't say.
> > >
> > > >Nope, *I* didn't quote anything, you're still stuck in this face to
> face
> > > >nonsense. The program I used, happened to post what you AND the
> > > >previous poster had typed. You chose to think that something in no way
> > > >relevant to you, using no examples relevant to you, was in fact, about
> > > >you.
> > >
> > > So you exert no control over what your news client does? That's the
> > > defence prattytroll uses, when he posts lies then says that his news
> > > client was doing the lying. Novel, I must say.
> >
> >
> > and yet not novel, as you've just pointed out.
> >
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > >> Why quote anyone then?
> > >
> > > >So that those who are interested in hearing what others are saying
> > > >around them can join in. Why would you need to quote someone if you
> > > >were speaking to them face to face?
> > >
> > > Ah, you *did* quote someone. Further up, I thought you said that you
> > > *didn't* quote anyone.
> > >
> > > Very confusing, I must say.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > So you've accepted the fact that you stupidly replied to a post that had
> > nothing to do with you, and have now moved on to falsly claiming further
> > confusion over semantics.
> >
> > Interesting style of argument, no wonder you're so easily confused.
> >
> Normally I'd just let you kids go for it, but Fish! did deny quoting anyone
> in one paragraph and then only two paragraphs later said he did in fact
> quote. Now let's all have a soothing herbal tea and get on with life.
>
> Ken
>
>
>
I think I said that the program which I used, did the 'quoting', it was
taken by Craig to be about him, which it wasn't. These things happen
when REPLY is hit in a followup up post, rather than to the original
poster.
I think a soothing bottle of Vodka may do the trick.
> Normally I'd just let you kids go for it, but Fish! did deny
> quoting anyone in one paragraph and then only two paragraphs later
> said he did in fact quote. Now let's all have a soothing herbal tea
> and get on with life.
Sniff...all this is bringing back those wonderful Fidonet memories...
The intellectually asymmetrical discussions that pointlessly continue
on for months on end...
Usenet, even today, with its potential audience of 300 million morons,
has still to really redevelop such a finely-polished classical milieu.
--
Chris,,