www.Usenet.com
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil Smythe) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (kenhiggs8) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil Smythe) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (kenhiggs8) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil Smythe) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (kenhiggs8) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil Smythe) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
What a disgraceful effort by you Ken. A mixture of bluff and bluster interspersed with OUTRIGHT LIES. You clearly have no pride to sacrifice so you obviously figure that even blatant lies are acceptable.
Col, you're such a duffer, I can't believe that you come back daily for some more humiliation. I can only conclude that you actually enjoy it.
OK, stand by for your daily dose of humiliation:
Does us all a favour Ken and stop wasting everyone's time.
Come back when you so called proof that I denied staring a thread about Larry and that I claim Larry started that same thread ACTUALLY HAS THE WORD "START" in it!
Or even any word synonymous with "start". Your effort contains neither, rendering it TOTALLY USELESS.
Of course if you follow that advice we'll never hear another of your lies again, because I HAVE NEVER claimed either of those things.
kenhiggs8 wrote:
Phil Smythe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
snip
To label a thread 'Larry the hypocritical racist' and then bleat if he comes in and has his say (not to mention the ridiculous notion that the thread made no mention of racism until Larry 'butted in') seems to me to be completely hypocritical. You guys are actively targetting Larry and pushing buttons in order to get a response. When you get a response, you seem surprised.
Responding. The targetting was all Larry's.
Would appear to fit the bill rather nicely.
In your dreams Ken.
So who was it who said 'Responding. The targetting was all Larry's'?
Are you denying it was you?
No Ken. That you ask that question only shows your inability to comprehend basic English. My reply above is NOT a denial of my making that statement, not even close. It is quite simply a direct response to your "Would appear to fit the bill rather nicely" claim where I indicate that if you believe that quote proves I denied starting that thread then you are dreaming, because it CLEARLY doesn't.
So when I claimed you were targetting Larry and asked you if you started the thread, when not say 'yes, I started the thread', rather than say 'Responding. The targetting was all Larry's'?
Lie number one.
My statement, "Responding. The targetting was all Larry's" was NOT a reply to you asking me if I started the thread. Why you would try this ludicrous tactic only you would know.
My reply "Responding. The targetting was all Larry's" was a direct response to your EXACT, COMPLETE and UNABRIDGED claim, "To label a thread 'Larry the hypocritical racist' and then bleat if he comes in and has his say (not to mention the ridiculous notion that the thread made no mention of racism until Larry 'butted in') seems to me to be completely hypocritical. You guys are actively targetting Larry and pushing buttons in order to get a response. When you get a response, you seem surprised.".
As you can CLEARLY see nowhere in that statement have you, "asked (me) you if you started the thread". To try and pretend otherwise is gross untruthfulness.
So you're saying that you had no idea, then or now, that my contention was that you had started the thread, therefore you couldn't be responding?
Are you sure you aren't naive?
Why avoid answering the question and claim the fault was all Larry's?
Even though no question was asked I clarified that, in my view, I was responding to Larry. This has been explained to you ad nauseum. Therefore there was NO question avoidance of a question NOT ASKED.
But how could you be responding to Larry? You started the thread.
Further, if, as you maintain, you were unaware that I felt you weren't responding but were initiating, because you'd started the thread, how come you felt the need to clarify?
You aren't lying, again, are you, Col?
Your entire line of reasoning appears to revolve around you asking me if I deny something I haven't said. If I had denied anything you would quote that denial, but you don't. You should simply be able to quote EXACTLY what I say and offer proof to disprove EXACTLY that. Seeing that path is unavavailable to you all you can do is INVENT my postion, eg "Are you denying it was you?" when we both know I HAVE NOT denied it.
Try to keep up.
I quite specifically accused you of targetting Larry and asked if you started the thread (which you titled 'Larry the hypocritical racist'). You denied targetting Larry and avoided answering the question.
Why was that?
Lie number two.
Actually lie number one repeated, see above.
So you're reneging and saying it wasn't you who said "Responding. The targetting was all Larry's" ?
I thought you'd conceded that you had said that.
You claim you were responding, yet it was you who started the thread.
You got caught out.
Higgsy
What an ignominious end you have come to Ken. When all the dust has settled your ENTIRE argument that I denied starting a thread is based on my response to a question that NEVER asked if I had started a thread.
So when I initially asked you how you could claim to be responding, when you'd in fact started the thread, it never occured to you that you had in fact started the thread?
I explained it to you then Ken and I'll explain to you again. I RESPONDED to Larry's claim, that all criticism of AdS was racially based, by starting a thread to point out his hypocrisy. That's what I told you at the time and that still holds true now. You know this but for reasons best known to yourself prefer to ignore it. Starting a thread in response is an entirely reasonable action.
You didn't tell me at the time, you simply claimed you were responding to Larry and refused to answer my specific question. On several occasions.
Lie number three.
Even though you actually asked no question, specific or otherwise, I none the less countered your specific claim that I was targetting Larry. Why would I tell anything about "starting" when this had NOT BEEN RAISED as the undeniable record of your statement shows?
So you answered some specific questions, even though none had been asked?
Yet you still claim you were unaware of my stance that you'd started the thread and therefore couldn't be responding?
These two actions simply don't add up.
Why was that?
As shown above, not asked, no reply required.
So why, allegedly, answer a question that hadn't been asked?
Weird.
You asked what all the fuss was about. You should know, you caused it. You keep accusing me of denying starting the thread "Larry the hypocritical racist" and I keep telling you I have never denied it. That is why terabytes have been used Ken, because you refuse to accept what the opening post of YOUR thread "Larry and his hypocritical racism" plainly contains, ie an acknowledgment from me that I started the thread. Why do you continue to ignore this obvious evidence? Evidence that even you have posted!
'Responding. The targetting was all Larry's' was what I objected to.
And I have told you my reasoning. I told you months ago.
But the fact remains, as shown umpteen times, you started the thread. You could hardly be responding to a thread that you started, could you?
No, oh dim witted one, because that's NOT what I did. I responded IN, not to, a thread I started which I have pointed out constantly. I'm sorry if this simple device eludes you.
You'll have to run that past me again.
I say you couldn't have been responding because you started the thread, yet here you are again saying 'that's NOT what I did.'
Col, can we clear this up once and for all? You started the thread.
You now claim that your use of the term 'responding' was in relation
to another thread.
respond on that thread), but on the thread in question (Larry the hypocritical racist), you weren't responding, you were initiating.
Correct?
I pointed out that you'd started the thread.
And, as I keep telling you, I have NEVER denied starting that thread. My quote above DOES NOT deny starting anything, it is simply an answer to your query of "targetting".
Sorry, but you need to brush up on basic comprehension. I stated that you were targetting Larry, it wasn't a query.
My query was if you had started the thread.
'Responding. The targetting was all Larry's'
was your reply to my query.
Lie number four.
As shown in lies number one and two the above statement of mine was NOT a reply to any question about starting the thread.
Here we go again. Col, you started the thread, you weren't responding. You initiated the thread.
Let's stick to the concession you made on that point and stop trying to back out of what you've previously admitted.
Looks pretty much like a denial to me.
Yes, a denial of targetting. A hint Ken, "targetting" and "starting" are two different words with two different meanings.
So, can we try again?
You were totally unaware that I was claiming that you can't have been responding because you had started the thread?
Can we have a yes or no on that one?
It DOES NOT mention "starting". My
reply never touched on "starting" and was never intended to.
Of course it was never intended to. The intention was to avoid the question.
There was NO question just a claim of "targetting" which I answered.
You were totally unaware that I was claiming that you can't have been responding because you had started the thread?
I find that rather hard to believe, even given your undoubtedly poor comprehension skills
You argued the point with me, and you still are.
Of course I am, because you are dead wrong. You can only produce your false interpretation of what I wrote as proof. I keep telling you that what I wrote I stand 100% behind , I meant EXACTLY what I wrote, nothing more nothing less. And what I wrote did NOT deny starting that thread, starting the thread or not was not at issue.
I know you stand 100% behind it. You tried to avoid the question and gave the answer
'Responding. The targetting was all Larry's'
Lie number five.
As before a simple look at what you wrote and my DIRECT reply shows you to continue this lie.
You were totally unaware that I was claiming that you can't have been responding because you had started the thread?
You got caught out.
Get over it and move on.
And your "proof"? You continually quote me saying, "Responding. The targetting was all Larry's" as evidence of two things; (i) that it is a denial of my starting the thread "Larry the hypocritical racist" and (ii) that it is evidence of my claiming Larry started that same thread.
OK, let's revist our first exchange.
I said:
'To label a thread 'Larry the hypocritical racist' and then bleat if he comes in and has his say (not to mention the ridiculous notion that the thread made no mention of racism until Larry 'butted in') seems to me to be completely hypocritical. You guys are actively targetting Larry and pushing buttons in order to get a response. When you get a response, you seem surprised.
As Bob amply showed, others call Larry racist with no provocation, yet demand an apology if Larry does like to them. It's a fairly open and shut case of not being able to dish out what you serve up
Higgsy'
To which you replied:
'Responding. The targetting was all Larry's'
I maintain you weren't responding because it was you who started the thread.
And I KEEP telling you that I was responding. I didn't make up the topic and Larry out of thin air.
'Larry the hypocritical racist' was not a topic you made up out of thin air?
Who made it up? Larry?
Do tell.
Obviously. He was being a hypocritical racist and I started a thread in response to that. That others agreed is proof that this is what was going on. This topic didn't just come out of a vacuum Ken.
Sorry?
Larry made up the topic 'Larry the hypocritical racist'?
Col, it was you, you've conceded on that point. Stop trying to back out of that.
He made a series of claims, I
responded to that by starting a thread to point out his inconsistency. As his claims were against numerous posters it made sense to deal with Larry's series of remarks in a single place, ergo my starting a thread. Seemed a lot easier than posting the same point after every instance of Larry having a go at a critic of AdS.
OK, now we're getting somewhere. You started the thread. Your contention was that Larry was a hypocritical racist.
Got something right at last!
Hurrah. You admit you started the thread!
It was a new topic (hence the new thread).
On a roll!
Hurrah. It was a new topic, not one Larry started, as you claim a few lines
above
(you're tripping yourself up with these contradictions).
So how were you 'responding'?
It was a new thread, one that you had started.
Why must I constantly explain this to you Ken? Are you that thick? I started a thread (never denied) in response to Larry's claims. Simple, well for some anyway.
So yiou couldn't have been responding, and it couldn't have been a topic Larry started? Obviously?
That you can't grasp this simple concept is at the heart of your confusion. This method is extremely common. It is used constantly in newspapers, journals and magazines where articles are published in response to other articles, not necissarily from the same publication. These are quite rightly viewed as responses, because that is what they are. As was mine.
You're a rather naive person, aren't you?
Not really, how about you Ken?
LOL!
If person X in publication A claims all criticism of Israel is anti-semitic then person Y might respond to that in publication B. Is person Y targetting person X? I'm sure he/she, like me, would say no, they are responding. That is exactly what I have done and what I have consistently told you.
But this is usenet. We aren't talking about some hypothetical magazine.
"But this is usenet"! So? If it can happen in "some hypothetical magazine" it can happen here. And it did.
Where?
Well the second one is a complete joke even to someone who knows nothing of what's gone on. That claim is just plain laughable, and PATENTLY WRONG.
yet you're unable to refute it.
Of course I can, it WAS NEVER said by me. You are unable to provide any quote of me saying that, because I have NEVER said that. My saying that the thread 'Larry the hypocritical racist' was a response by me could NEVER be interpreted by anyone but the most dense to mean that Larry started that thread.
Yet when I specifically asked you the question, your reply was
'Responding. The targetting was all Larry's'
Lie number six.
Here we go again.
Col, you've already conceded that you did say this.
Why you continue this lie only you know. See above at lies 1,2 and 4.
What was the point of that?
You continue your habit of inventing my claims then saying I can't refute them. Every time I ask for my EXACT words you produce an interpretation of what I wrote, because what I actually wrote does not support what you claim.
No, Col, and here's where you need to brush up on basic language skills, I haven't been producing an interpretation, I've been quoting you verbatim.
The parenthesis are a dead giveaway.
This is where you truly embarrass yourself Ken. Lying takes a bit of skill, being an idiot none.
Col, you said 'Responding. The targetting was all Larry's'. I can, and have, proved it.
It was a direct quote.
You do indeed use my exact words Ken. Problem is what you claim I have said, ie denied starting the thread, DOES NOT appear in my quoted words. That is YOUR INTERPREATATION Ken. Have you noticed that when you claim I denied starting the thread that the word "start" or any variation thereof DOES NOT appear in my EXACT words? Obviously not.
Col, you said 'Responding. The targetting was all Larry's', you've conceded as much.
Let's now move on. Pretending that they weren't your exact words, only my interpretation of what you actually said, is going to get you nowhere.
We both know it was a direct quote. Let's not pretend otherwise.
Your whole pathetic argument is based SOLELY on your interpretation, NOT on my EXACT words. That is why when I keep asking where I said "started" you keep posting my statement which contains only two verbs, "responding" and "targetting", no mention of "starting".
'Responding. The targetting was all Larry's'
It's a direct quote.
The first betrays a complete lack of understanding of the English language. "Starting", "responding" and "targetting" are three discrete words. You brought up "targetting" Ken and I ascribed that to Larry who had been attacking everyone who was critical of Asoka Da Silva's performance by calling them racists. Almost everyone, including eventually Larry himself, conceded this was unsustainable. I described my action as a response to Larry's targetting. That was not then and is still not a denial of starting a thread. It was an answer to your question of why you thought I was targetting Larry. This was all explained to you eons ago, you obviously would prefer to forget that.
So how come it was you who started the thread?
I have no idea what you're on about here Ken. Why not me? Why does anyone start a thread? A myriad of people start threads for a myriad of reasons. You know mine.
You claim you started the thread because:
"I responded to that by starting a thread to point out his inconsistency."
(and please note, those are your exact words).
Indeed they are Ken.
Indeed they are, Col, indeed they are.....
You wanted to expose his alleged inconsistency by starting a new thread.
Right again.
Yes, I'm right again, Col, right once again....
How is that responding? Isn't that 'starting' (you know, the word you used yourself)?
It is both, they are not mutually exclusive in this case. There is nothing inconsistent about starting something in response. Using Google (I can use it Ken) if you search for the exact phrase "started in response" it gives about 4,530 results, eg "This project was started in response to the November 11, 2002 tornado outbreak" from http://www.brethren.org/genbd/ersm/current.htm or "The St. Patrick's Playschool and Daycare was started in response to a need in our community." from http://www.hoprayer.org/schools.htm. Need I go on?
You're a bit of a newbie, aren't you, Col? It's not both responding and starting. It's starting.
And it does beg the question, if you claim the word 'starting' does not appear anyway, therefore I must be wrong, what is your defence for the claim that 'It is both, they are not mutually exclusive in this case.'?
And why do you continue to ignore what I was replying to Ken. Not an accusation of "starting" anything, but a claim of "targetting". If you had written , "you started a thread targetting Larry" I probably would have replied that "I started a thread in response to Larry's accusations". But as you DID NOT mention starting naturally my reply did not mention starting.
I don't believe you.
My contention is that if I'd asked you that question, you'd have still denied starting the thread. Your natural stance is to lie, that much is obvious.
You entire argument is typical of almost all your arguments. It is based on your interpretation of what I wrote, rather than what I actually wrote. And where I wrote something that conflicts with your interpretation you simply ignore it, despite having already quoted it.
So how come you can't refute it, and spent a month or so denying ever having started the thread?
I can and HAVE repeatedly refuted it. Despite your protestations I have NEVER denied starting that thread, not for a month or so, not ever. All you can offer is my answer to an unrelated question NOT asking whether I started that thread. You conspicuously DO NOT provide any evidence of me stating that I did not start that thread. Why? Because I have NEVER said that.
You seemed, at the time, unable to admit to starting the thread, instead, replying:
'Responding. The targetting was all Larry's'
Lie number seven.
As pointed out constantly my reply was NOT to any question regarding "starting".
So you were unaware that I claimed you couldn't be responding because you started the thread?
You really expect anyone to believe that?
You seem to have trouble with it still, claiming at times that it isn't actually a quote, it's simply my interpretation of what you said. Col, it's a quote. You said it.
Yes, I did say that. Which is why I call what claim an interpretation. Because what you claim DOES NOT appear in my quote. NO mention of "start" or any variation and NO mention of start in what I had replied to either.
So can we agree that it is a direct quote? Not, as you claim, an interpretation?
Anyone else foolish to be following this exchange would probably think, "Why doesn't Ken simply quote Phil saying that he did not start that thread. That should end all argument". If they then read what you did quote ("Responding. The targetting was all Larry's") they would be rather confused because that is CLEARLY NOT a denial of starting a thread.
Why then on our second exhange, did you say: -------------------------------------------------
So you admit to starting up a post 'Larry the hypocritical racist', yet still claim he's the one doing the targetting!
What is it about the word "response" confuses you? ------------------------------------------------------
Why didn't you admit to starting the thread, rather than avoid answering and make a smart-arse reply about not understanding the use of the word response?
Are you serious? You had just conceded I had started the thread but now you reckon I didn't admit starting the thread? That is totally nonsensical. Why would I need to admit to something you had just correctly stated I did? I quite rightly chose to respond to the bit I did dispute, ie the "targetting" which I had told was in fact "responding" i what was not even a question from you, just a statement.
Why would I 'concede' that you had started the thread?
Probably because I had started it.
I said you'd started the thread, you said you hadn't. Later, you admitted you had.
I'd say you 'conceded' that you'd started it.
My initial point was that you had started the thread. Surely you're the one who has finally been forced to concede that you started the thread.
Lie number eight.
Your initial point WAS NOT that I had started the thread, it was that I was targetting Larry. Why keep up this charade Ken?
So you were unaware that I claimed you couldn't be responding because you started the thread?
I notice too you have invented a new position for me, that I need to confirm that I actually wrote, "Responding. The targetting was all Larry's". Where do you get this rubbish from Ken? Nowhere have I ever denied writing that and there is NO evidence to suggest I would. It's plainly on the record that I did write it and I am happy to acknowledge it, as well as happy to support it. Comprende?
So when I asked the question, why did you avoid answering?
What are you talking about? I have NEVER avoided answering your questions Ken. At times you are unhappy with the answers but the answers are still there.
So when I asked if you'd started the thread, why answer:
'Responding. The targetting was all Larry's'?
Lie number nine.
As pointed out previously my reply was NOT to any claim of "starting" but to a claim of "targetting". I bet you wish you could turn back time Ken and change what you initially wrote to me. But you can't, it's there in perpetuity. And it DOES NOT contain the word "start".
Is it true that you said, in relation to 'starting' and 'responding':
'It is both, they are not mutually exclusive in this case.'?
Is it true that this is a ditrect quote from you (rather than an interpretation)?
A simple yes or no will do.
You accused me of "targetting" Larry, I clarified that I was responding to his claims, the concept of "starting" a thread does NOT occur in that exchange. That you would post countless messages using that as a basis to accuse me of denying starting that thread is a sad indictment on both your level of English comprehension and fragile state of mind
If you wanted to answer the question, I'm quite sure you could have.
You deliberately avoided answering.
Why was that?
For starters Ken, as I pointed out above, you DID NOT actualy ask a question, just had a rant. Again as I have pointed out above you wrote "So you admit to starting up a post 'Larry the hypocritical racist' " which for all the world looks like you accept I did just that. What is there for me to answer? As you correctly surmise I started the post and reckoned it was Larry who was doing the targetting, my thread being a response ti that targetting. Even if you still can't accept that logic that in NO WAY is a denial by me that I strated the thread.
'Responding. The targetting was all Larry's'
was your response to my question.
Reading problems Ken? Even you realise that what you wrote was NOT a question, but a rant. My reply was to that rant which NEVER mentioned starting anything.
'It is both, they are not mutually exclusive in this case.'
Are the words you used to describe it.
Are you able to clarify why you said this, rather than 'yes, I started the thread' (or somesuch variation)?
Of course. Because the issue of who started the thread wasn't raised. And why would it be? I had clearly started it with my name alongside the opening post. Hard to deny something you're not asked.
So you weren't aware that this was an issue?
Get over it Ken. Larry conceded he'd got it wrong ("That is a very fair point lucky Phil. I shall try harder to be far more vigilant on such matters from now on dude. I admit that generalising sucks and I was one of the worst exponents of this nonsense. I sincerely apologise for that. I was wrong to generalise about posters here.") but you just keep digging yourself further and further into a hole. Quite pathetic actually.
Here's a quick example of your totally ridiculous behvaiour. On May 5 you quoted me as follows, "I started a thread pointing out that Larry was himself a hypocritical racist and gave evidence of this", yet a few posts later on May 11 you asked me "Did you or did you not start the thread?". On May 14 I told you ".. in the opening post of THIS thread, started by YOU, you quote ME acknowledging that I started the thread in question". And your response to my acknowledgement? "Ok, so you are going to refuse to answer this, is that it?" Certifiable behaviour!
What will it take for you to concede that I have acknowledged starting the thread "Larry the hypocritical racist" on countless occasions and have NEVER denied it. Saying I wasn't targetting, but responding IS NOT a denial of starting anything! It is NOTHING to do with "starting". "Targetting" and "starting" are NOT the same Ken. Can you grasp this?
OK, you condeded that you started the thread.
Conceded? I NEVER denied it at any stage. The word "concede" is inappropriate in this context Ken, and you know it. A concession normally comes from someone admitting defeat and that is NOT what I am doing. Nice try, no dice.
So up above, why do you say to me 'You had just conceded I had started the thread' (and Col, that's another direct quote)?
Because that's what you had done.
But I maintained you'd started the thread, you'd denied it.
Eventually you 'conceded' that you'd started the thread.
Are you aware what the term 'concede' means?
Absolutely.
I don't believe you.
If we take your definition, as given 7 lines above, it would appear that you don't even stick to your own definition.
No idea what you're on about here Ken.
7 lines above, you define a concession as ' concession normally comes from someone admitting defeat', yet when you agree that I was correct, you claim it was a concession from me.
Isn't it true that you will twist words to suit whatever purpose you have in mind?
No, it is not. I keep referring you to my EXACT words, you keep claiming meanings not according to what I wrote. You keep saying I denied starting the thread yet my EXACT words do not include "starting".
Have the quotes I've given been verbatim?
Isn't it true that you use words in the most innappropriate circumstances, often completely devoid of their dictionary definition, and then claim your meaning was obvious to all?
Again no. I use them accurately and am happy to have them regurgitated. That you discard my ACTUAL words and replace them with your words proves your dishonesty.
Can you give any examples of where I've replaced any of your words with my own?
Isn't this one of the reasons why most people on tpg class you as a liar?
How would you know Ken? After your first journey there you came back calling me " a real gun totin guy" which is as far from fact as you can get. There are people there even more rabid than you. They specialise in calling their opponents liars but NEVER actually back that up. Go ahead and look for a real live example of me being PROVEN a liar there. You won't find one because there aren't any. Have a look though if you wish.
Col, they all call you a liar.
Why do you think that is?
I'm just amazed that it took you so long to admit it.
I'm amazed you'd think anyone would believe the above line. Even YOU, YOURSELF, have quoted me over 5 MONTHS AGO acknowledging I started the thread. Is your memory that bad?
And here we go again. 'Acknowledging'.
I claimed you started the thread.
Lie number ten.
You claimed I was targetting Larry.
So you were unaware of my claim?
How quaint.
If you're admitting to it, you're the one doing the acknowledging.
Got it yet?
No Ken, you're all confused I'm afraid. In YOUR thread you quoted me. That is an acknowledgement by you that I did state I'd started the thread.
So, as I said a few weeks ago, why spend terabytes denying it?
How is it this 5 month old piece of fact, from your post, gets continually ignored? It is proof positive that I did not shy away from saying I stated the thread, when asked.
Ho Ho Ho
You obviously didn't realise that Google archives these posts and i would be oh so easy to prove that you had started it.
Here you go Ken, making this classic gaffe again. See rather than make a point on what I have written you prefer to INVENT something about me. And as seems to be your habit you get it wrong. I do (and did) realise that Google archives these things which is why I could always go back and get my EXACT words to counter your INTERPRETATIONS. That my name is alongside the opening post is, apart from being truthful, a good reason not to deny starting that thread.
'Responding. The targetting was all Larry's'.
Now, is that a direct quote, or is it my interpretation. Think carefully.
The statement, "Responding. The targetting was all Larry's" is a direct quote. Anything beyond that involving a verb other than "respond" or "target" is clearly an interpretation. If you cannot see this then there is little hope for you.
So you're conceding that I quoted you?
I didn't replace any of your words with my own, as you claim above?
Quick English lesson Ken.
Phil said, "Responding. The targetting was all Larry's" is direct speech. Phil said that he was responding and that the targetting was all Larry's" is indirect speech. Any other version is a interpretation of some sort. Any version that includes the word "starting" is plainly an interpretation because neither "starting" nor any word synonymous with "starting" is contained in the original sentence. When the statement that this reply was to is examined the word "starting" does not occur there either. Clearly your claim of my denial of starting the thread is an interpretation. And a WRONG one at that.
So you're conceding that I quoted you verbatim?
Or are you going to push ahead with this ridiculous claim that I've been substituting your words with my own?
Still under the influence Ken. Put it away.
A simple yes or no will suffice.
You need more than a simple response Ken, you need it spelled out slowly. See above.
The question was 'Now, is that a direct quote, or is it my interpretation?'. Why aren't you able to give a yes or a no?
I guess you learnt the hard way, eh?
You're right there mate, it's taken you all this time to finally realise that I told you I started the thread way, way back and never denied it. I have learnt, the hard way, that the only way to get you to accept the FACTS is to constantly ram them down your throat until you finally get the message.
the phrase:
'Responding. The targetting was all Larry's'
Ring any bells with you?
The only bells are those ringing inside your head Ken.
Ho Ho Ho
Higgsy PS am I really your mate?
Not necessarily. The term does not confer mateship, that needs to be earned. Isn't that right pal?
So you are calling me mate because I earnt the term?
your pal Higgsy
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
