Google| Subject | Re: Clobberin' Time... |
| From | Paul \"Duggy\" Duggan |
| Date | 09/21/2001 05:58 (09/21/2001 13:58) |
| Message-ID | <Pine.OSF.4.21.0109211340520.32648-100000@marlin.jcu.edu.au> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc |
| Follows | Wes Hutchings |
| Followups | Wes Hutchings (48m) |
On Wed, 19 Sep 2001, Wes Hutchings wrote:
The point is your original statement was incorrectly phrases, that's why it needed clarification. I'm not pretending, you did say something other than what you meant.Paul \"Duggy\" DugganWes Hutchings
From: "Paul \"Duggy\" Duggan" <jc122739@jcu.edu.au> On Wed, 19 Sep 2001, Wes Hutchings wrote:Paul \"Duggy\" DugganYour phrasing is screwed.Wes Hutchings
Your perception is lacking.
No, it's your mistake.
I clarified my position, you still want to pretend I said something else.
That makes it a perception problem on your part as I know what I said and I have substantiated it.No, it was a communication problem on your part. What you say grammatically meant something else. That isn't a problem on my side.
Excuse you, I know what I said and what I meant.We both do know. What you said, however was wrong.
Your ignorance on the matter is clearly established, no need to reenforce that point.Bzzzt. Wrong answer.
Sorry, the last *mentioned* object was the swordfight. Since no new object was introduced, it has to be assumed to be the last object as well.Paul \"Duggy\" DugganWes Hutchings
The last object was the skill at swordfighting.
No, it was not, that was second to last.
But you only referred directly to skill. By not mentioning yourself, mangled the writing.Paul \"Duggy\" DugganWes Hutchings
If your had added a new object, such as "person", it would have worked.
I discussed skill in the first instance and myself in the second.
Are you with me yet?I was with you as soon as you explained.
Use better words.Paul \"Duggy\" DugganWes Hutchings
"I'm [a] better [person] because of it."
I'll use my own words.
No, I lecturer would have noted the error on the paper and (possibly) dropped you a percentage. He would also have suggested clarifying what you had written, perhaps by adding "person."Paul \"Duggy\" DugganWes Hutchings
Look, if I'd put that in an essay the lecturer would have made a comment.
And then he would have understood when I clarified my position.
You have failed in that regard.I haven't. You've failled to accept you screwed up your phrasing.
No. I understand. I see where you made the error. You refuse to accept that you made a mistake, and refuse to accept advise on how to make yourself clear.Paul \"Duggy\" DugganWes Hutchings
You miss phrased.
No, you misunderstood and still do, deal with that.
When we had the spamming problem you advocated a an approach that everyone would agree counts as violenceI recall no deaths or physical injures from troll abuse.
It is not violence, it is *very* *very* different.
I don't agree it counts as violence, so your assumption that everyone would agree is wrong.
and you considered that the first best approach to the problem.No. I considered it the final best approach after the others had failled. If you'd read any of my comments at the time, you'd know that.
Have you changed that position or are you an hypocrite in yet another way?Firstly, we've yet to agree that I am proven a hypocrit in the first instance, but that's another matter.
On the topic at hand. Firstly, I am against the violent possibilities in dealing with terrorism because of the death and injury involved. Secondly, I think that such decissions should be made properly and not based on anger and polls. Thirdly, I am in favour of thrying to stop terrorist through other means if possible.
The Spam-abuse situation is different in that no one is injured or killed (very important), that while there is anger behind it, other options were tried and failled. Repeatedly.
However, I will admit, that your fear of ascelation in Spamming (which, in my experience was unfounded) matches my fears of ascelation of American deaths. There is some hypocracy there. A mild form, but hypocracy is hypocracy.
However, I'd much rather RASSM be 100% SPAM see move terrorist attacks on US targets.
--- - Dug. --- "May you live in interesting times." ---
09/11/2001-
-
-
-
