W. D. Grey said:Quoted message said:Jeez Bill, lighten up! It wasn't personal. I told you that and you
didn't believe me. I wasn't trying to be patronising, I was trying
to convince you of that in a light hearted way.
First you say the message was for the NG not me personally,
Correct.
Quoted message said:now you
say you were trying to convince ME.
I was trying to convince you that MY MESSAGE WAS NOT A PERSONAL REPLY TO
YOU! You seem to be misunderstanding everything I say. The more I try
to explain it the more you seem to misunderstand it.
Quoted message said:I don't need convincing.
Yes you do, because you've clearly misunderstood the situation [1], just
as you seem to be misunderstanding my explanation.
Quoted message said:Forget it Paul your manner just wasn't light hearted - no smiley
seemed to be assumed.
You don't even seem to understand what I was referring to in my
explanation. I DID use a smiley! I quote;
"This is a newsgroup Bill, these are not private messages! ;-)"
That was my "light-hearted attempt" to convince you that my comments
weren't aimed at you personally.
Quoted message said:Now it's you turn to lighten up.
I don't see why I should, you've made me bloody angry now. You're the
one who made an argument out of nothing at all, through a simple
misunderstanding which I've explained but which you refuse to accept.
Quoted message said:"Liar"- this is the fiirst time I've ever typed the word !
The ball is in your court.
Don't bother to respond, I'm not interested.
I will respond, but not for your benefit. I am not a liar. Why would I
go to all this trouble to defend my position if I had addressed my
comments to you personally as you claimed? I'd simply have apologised
if that was the case. I'm arguing this point because it wasn't the
case. You have insulted my integrity.
YOU misunderstood the intention of my post. I have no problem with your
misunderstanding, but I do have a problem with you not having the
humility to accept my explanation.
[1] Ever watched Patrick Moore on the Sky at Night? In it he often
asks experts questions, and they reply as if they are explaining it to
him, even though we all know that he already knows the answer. This is
not done for Patrick's benefit, it's done for the benefit of the
viewers. He could simply face the camera and tell the viewers the
information directly, but this "conversational" ploy is a more
interesting way of getting the information across.
I was using much the same technique in my reply to you, but you refuse
to accept that I may actually be telling the truth and that you made a
mistake. Try reading my post again from the point of view of someone
else in the newsgroup who didn't see the programme, and see how it reads
then.
And this is the thanks I get for agreeing with you and supporting what
you were saying.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk