Subject | Re: Eric will argue about everything, for days (was: Re: Adobe's Low hanging) |
From | Eric Stevens |
Date | 08/06/2014 11:11 (08/06/2014 21:11) |
Message-ID | <9mr3u9hv7a24mbkoq3gute9h1ovn033ilb@4ax.com> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
Follows | Sandman |
Followups | Sandman (11h & 31m) > Eric Stevens |
SandmanSure I've messeed it up. I've tried to pput it back the way it was before you tampered with it.
In article <b373u9tl8bghpv1ihlhk1movv4m0iiu2ug@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:Eric StevensSandman
On 5 Aug 2014 10:14:52 GMT, Sandman <mr@sandman.net>got back to his old tricks by chopping and changing what I wrote so he can interpret it to his own advantage. I've restored it all so I can't be accused of bias. Text in square brackets is recovered text. I've also realised that Sandman uses double quote marks (>>) which can mislead you as to has said what in the past.
You have totally messed up your entire post with your cut and paste editing. If you can't respond to what was written, then don't respond at all.
YYou might have got an answer if you hadn't tried to obscure the nature of the question.This Eric ignored in his creative editing.Eric StevensSandman
If I was wrong I will admit I to being wrong but there is no way I will admit to lying.
So, where is your admittance?
I had wanted to carry on an intelligent dialogue but I have no intention to try and respond to the debris you havve created out of the original text.SandmanEric StevensEric StevensSandman
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.
No, YOU were the one that started to talk about iPads, not I. The discussion had only been about iPhones up until you joined it and started to talk about iPad batteries.
Here Sandman gets confused. I've a good mind to let the text stand (but I won't).
Eric is more concerned with his trolling edits of the post than to respond on topic.
Who said what? Your creative use of quote marks makes it impossible to tell who is claiming what.Eric ignored this fact as well, meaning that his claim remains unsupported and he remains a liar.Eric StevensSandman
"But that's not the end of the fun - Eric is making a huge deal about the supposed magnetic switch in the iPad. Only, it's not a switch at all. It's a magnetic sensor. Ooops."
What I am *not* saying above is that there are no switches in an iPad, contrary to your claim.
Are you confused? That's your contribution.SandmanEric StevensEric StevensSandman
That's correct, right at the beginning of the thread, you (and we) were talking about iPads. This is your thread, your subject.
Incorrect. You started to talk about iPads, not I. I have merely been correcting your misinformation.
"Eric is making a huge deal about the supposed magnetic switch in the iPad. Only, it's not a switch at all. It's a magnetic sensor."
Do you have a point? Or are you so incompetent that you think this is the first time someone talked about an iPad in this thread?
Putting it back after you havve done your best to distort it is creative editing. Haw. Idiot.And neither in this one. You're so focused on your creative editing of posts that you totally miss the topic.You did not remedy this in this post either.You have yet to support the above claim, or retracted it. You remain a liar.
It was an accurate and well deserved title for you at that moment.Another part that Eric just glosses over, trying to ignore it.SandmanCalling 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.Eric Stevens
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.
I am never the one that starts with the name calling, you trolls are. Like clock work. When you've lost an argument, the name calling follows shortly after. It's a tell-tale sign.
Oh sure. Time and time again your deletion of the parts you were not responding to led to changes in the meaning.SandmanEric StevensSandman
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?
Here are more incorrect statements, let's list them:1. I started this thread. 2. This thread is a personal attack.I eagerly (not likely) await support for those statements. Failure to do so will brand you a liar... again.Eric Stevens
After the mess you have made trying to distort this argument to your own benefit I will not pursue it further. No doubt I have made some mistakes in attempting to restore things. Before you blame me for them you should consider that it would be better if you had not chopped things around in the first place.
I chopped nothing but the parts I was not responding to, and thus no longer part of the discussion. I always trim my post. I don't edit them to make them appear as something was said that wasn't, like you do.