Google| Subject | Re: iPad power supply unit (was: Re: Adobe's Low hanging) |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 08/06/2014 08:36 (08/06/2014 08:36) |
| Message-ID | <slrnlu3jjj.fpt.mr@irc.sandman.net> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Eric Stevens |
| Followups | Eric Stevens (2h & 40m) > Sandman Whisky-dave (4h & 35m) |
In article <0t43u9h457fjf0noltndk1fesumfqg89jq@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:
You failed to support your claim. You now have two options:Eric StevensSandman
You can talk to him about whatever you like but when you talk to me about something other than that which we have previously been talking about, then you have changed the subject we are talking about.
Please support this, where you were talking about something, and after Dave had changed the subject, I also changed the subject when responding to you.Please post Message-ID's with dates.Eric Stevens
If you want to track it down try Message-ID: <ocapt9hedbctup9r42npf2b1iid48fdgin@4ax.com>on Sat, 02 Aug 2014 21:09:07 +1200 for a start. It's not what you asked for but it will give you a pointer.
1. Support your claim 2. Retract your claim
Failure to do either makes you a liar - meaning that you're making a claim that you can't support and that you won't retract.
Haven't you ever stopped to notice that this is something that happens *all the time*?? You make a claim, I ask you to support it and you utter fail to support your claims every. single. time.
You really should learn to stop making claims, full stop.
No, *you* are the one that cut the sentence in two, responding only to one part out of context of the entire sentence, not I.Eric Stevens=============================>>>>>Sandman:SandmanEric StevensEric Stevens interjects Make up your mind. You are the one who wrote "Supplying power !>Power supply." A PSU can't supply power. All it can do is process the power with which it is supplied.Sandman
A PSU, or power supply, ...
Sandman Semantics, the trolls last resort. ==============================>
Do you have a point?
The last past of the bifurcated sentence explains what you were referring to in the first part. By cutting of the explanation you left the first part hanging there without a context.
YOU chopped up my paragraph, edited it to make it says something it didn't. You *ignored* the latter part of my sentence, because that's what you trolls do - you quote edit and respond out of context. This is a perfect example of it!
Here is my original post:
Sandman 07/25/2014 <slrnlt4bar.9u6.mr@irc.sandman.net>
"A PSU, or power supply, sits *between* the power *source* and the power *target*."
Here is your edited version in your follow-up:
Eric Stevens 07/26/2014 <c9u5t9d0s6jdai317n0nh6j4ulp79lve78@4ax.com>
">A PSU, or power supply, ...
Make up your mind. You are the one who wrote "Supplying power != Power supply." A PSU can't supply power. All it can do is process the power with which it is supplied.
sits *between* the power *source* and the power *target*."
What part is it that confuses you?Eric StevensSandmanSandmanEric Stevens
For the record, and as has been shown, I know far more about the meaning of semantics than you do.
Please demonstrate what you meant by your remark about semantics in the passage quoted above.
For what purpose?
Your remark requires explanation if it is to be properly understood.
Remember. you thought it was a good idea that people should ask you what you meant rather than ascribing wrong meanings to you.Of course. I just want to make sure what part of it that is so hard for you to understand.
-- Sandman[.net]
07/10/2014-
