Subject | Re: Eric will argue about everything, for days (was: Re: Adobe's Low hanging) |
From | Eric Stevens |
Date | 08/05/2014 00:40 (08/05/2014 10:40) |
Message-ID | <5bvvt9lm4gocgncucochg532blbn7j2ubi@4ax.com> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
Follows | Sandman |
Followups | Sandman (11h & 34m) > Eric Stevens |
Sandman(I put the Message ID back for you. Wasn't that nice? I hope you don't mind me being helpful)
In article <fkdtt9hqrrsefdmvn0og6jep13ai0ce6dt@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:You could have quoted your original article to prove that. In fact on 16 Jul 2014 10:14:52 in GMT Message-ID: <inmmt9l9o0njg539imo4auirtq1jr143c6@4ax.com>Eric StevensEric Stevens: Listen Dumb-brain
You are also the guy who claimed there are no switches in iPads.
Quoting out of context hides the fact that at that time we were discussing the on/off switch for the iPhone ring sound. It's got nothing to do with Hall effect switches."What "switch" was this? You say it's an internal component, and the topic was "moving parts" so you seem to imply that inside your iPhone there was a mechanical physically moving "switch" that was broken. Having seen the insides of many iPhones (I have a friend that repair them), I can assure you that no such switch exists."
If I was wrong I will admit I to being wrong but there is no way I will admit to lying. As I point out below, just a little further up the thread you were discussing iPads. I don't know when within the discussion you switched to iPhones.OK. I can see that I had forgotten that you were confining yourdenial to the existence of mechanical switches. It would have been helpful if you could have remembered that the first (or second (or third (or fourth))) time I asked you about it.Sandman
Or it could have done you well to learn to read - I am talking about not only moving parts above, but also about the *iPhone*.Again, you were lying and you got caught, you provided the proof for your own lies and failed to retract or support them. Still lying.
What do you think you were talking about when on 24 Jul 2014 08:43:10 GMT in Message-ID: <slrnlt1i4r.4o8.mr@irc.sandman.net>you wroteSandmanEric StevensSandman
Read what I wrote above. The diiscussion WAS in the context of the iPhone.
Yes, read what you wrote above - here is your claim:"You are also the guy who claimed there are no switches in iPads"Your above quote does *not* substantiate that incorrect claim from you. Either retract the claim or support it.Eric Stevens
I've already acknowedged that you were talking about mechanical switches. I know you have read it as you have responded to the article.
What you have not acknowledge is that you made a claim about me having said something about switches in *iPads* and your supposed support showed me talking about *iPhones*.
You have yet to support the above claim, or retracted it. You remain a liar.--- Message IDs for thread snipped ---SandmanEric StevensSandmanIt's a magnetic sensor. And you "pointed" that out in a post I totally ignored since you started it with a third grade personal attack, still quoted above.Eric Stevens
You dragged that up from another topic in another thread and at that time it was a deserved mode of address for you.
Lying again. It's still in the quoted material above, in the top. It's in this sub thread.
Yes,, but it's a quote from another thread on another subject.
No, liar. It's a quote from the post you made about the magnetic sensor, in *this* thread. Otherwise, it would not be in the quoted material above. Here is the entire hierarchy:
I will accept that. I was going by memory.SandmanThe first post is where you made your schoolyard insult like you were a 7 year old boy, and the rest are all posts in direct succession from it, with the last being the one I am currently replying to.See how substantiation works, yet?Eric Stevens
You call that a personal insult? All it was was a justified comment on your line of argument at the time. A bit primitive, I will agree, but definitely justified.
NIce attempt at a diversion. The above is substantiation that your claim that it was a quote from another thread is incorrect.
Calling someone "Dumb-brain", regardless of how utterly idiotic and immature it makes yourself look, certainly qualifies as a personal insult. Trying desperately to pass it off as a "justified comment" changes nothing.You don't have a reputation for being friendly and when you launch an attack on a person for a matter which has already been amicably settled between the parties you can expect to be put back in your place. That's what happened. You set the tone by starting a thread which is a personal attack and getting things wrong in everything you wrote. What do you expect: to be welcomed with rose petals? --