Google| Subject | Re: nospam still not admitting to an error (was: The closest we'll get to nospam admitting to an err |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 2016-01-25 07:31 (2016-01-25 07:31) |
| Message-ID | <sandman-baa5c685d121f359cc6902bab76d963c@individual.net> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Eric Stevens |
| Followups | Eric Stevens (1h & 52m) > Sandman |
In article <g3raablqfmvm55jq7ae0f6pre1c5ojdn9e@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:
SandmanEric Stevens
So why are you doing this all over again? You were proven wrong back then and I would have no problem proving you wrong again using the same facts. Why dig up arguments from the past like this?
Just to demonstrate the logicacl flaw in your claim that the only correct way to construct a thread is to rely on a feature, the use of which is optional.
Don't wind this argument up again or you will further irritate PeterN. Just accept that there is more than one way of looking at the matter.I am not the one "winding up" this argument again. You are. And there isn't a matter of "looking" at it. You made an incorrect claim that I disproved. Do you want me to disprove it yet again?
-- Sandman
2016-01-06-
