Definitive proof ;-)



Quoting Ziggy <[email protected]>:
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>More accurately, they indicated it to one kook who was desperately trying
>>to save his straw man. They didn't indicate it to me, or (as far as I can
>>make out) to anyone else except dear Luke who is on the other old favourite
>>kook track where he'll pin himself to any argument going.

>That is not 'more accurate'. It is tendentious waffling.


It is precisely accurate. You and Luke are the only people defending the
absurd interpretation that supports your fantasy scenario.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
Today is Second Leicesterday, March.
 
Quoting <[email protected]>:
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>Who cares? It's a distraction; it's merely an amusing aside to notice that
>>Ziggy couldn't even get it right.

>He's practicing one of the more egregious forms of trolling -


I don't think this is trolling, I think it's just the "I can never admit a
mistake" madness.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
Today is Second Leicesterday, March.
 
Quoting Ziggy <[email protected]>:
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>Quoting Ziggy <[email protected]>:
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>Rubbish. Someone talking about the largest and best studies _cannot_ be
>>>>talking about a particular subclass of impacts.
>>>Where does this 'largest and best studies' come from?

>>jtaylor wrote "at least that's what the best and largest studies show us"
>>in the article you have provided a pointer to about half a dozen times
>>now.

>Yes, I see it, but if you make a statement in response to a previous statement
>you cannot claim that a sub clause mentioning 'largest and best studies'
>somehow changes the sense of the main clause.


Well, yes, I can. I _am_ claiming that that makes it additionally obvious
that jtaylor was talking about the overall net effect, and it does.

>>>They were both simply denying a statement I made.

>>More accurately,

>There is no need to be 'more accurate'.


There certainly is, because of course when Tony wrote what he did he was
denying what he thought you meant, not having realised you'd constructed
this fantasy scenario.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
Today is Second Leicesterday, March.
 
On 22 Mar 2007 15:56:19 +0000 (GMT), David Damerell
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Quoting Ziggy <[email protected]>:
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>More accurately, they indicated it to one kook who was desperately trying
>>>to save his straw man. They didn't indicate it to me, or (as far as I can
>>>make out) to anyone else except dear Luke who is on the other old favourite
>>>kook track where he'll pin himself to any argument going.

>>That is not 'more accurate'. It is tendentious waffling.

>
>It is precisely accurate. You and Luke are the only people defending the
>absurd interpretation that supports your fantasy scenario.


Luke and I do not need to defend anything.

Raven and Taylor made unequivocal statements concerning helmet statementsand
they were WRONG.

You, and as many other members of the idiot tendency as care to post can do so,
as many times as they like.

It will not alter the fact that Raven and Taylor were wrong to deny that a
helmet can ever save a life and Smith and Taylor were WRONG to use the idea of
-ve probability where they did.
 
On 22 Mar 2007 15:58:37 +0000 (GMT), David Damerell
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Quoting <[email protected]>:
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Who cares? It's a distraction; it's merely an amusing aside to notice that
>>>Ziggy couldn't even get it right.

>>He's practicing one of the more egregious forms of trolling -

>
>I don't think this is trolling, I think it's just the "I can never admit a
>mistake" madness.


I would agree that it's "I can never admit a mistake" madness.

However, the madness is, of course, on your part as you are the one who is
trying to pretend that two posters did not say what they quite clearly did say.

You seem to be saying that although the words unambiguously say what I claim
they say they cannot possible say that because, erm, it's WRONG.

For some reason though, you have decided, in a sort of Smith/Damerell version of
newspeak, that you cannot allow that two old hands in URC are wrong so you will
construct some weird fantasy version of language and logic where I am the one
who is wrong even though it is indisputably, at least by any sane person, they
who uttered the incorrect statements.
 
On 22 Mar 2007 16:00:55 +0000 (GMT), David Damerell
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>Yes, I see it, but if you make a statement in response to a previous statement
>>you cannot claim that a sub clause mentioning 'largest and best studies'
>>somehow changes the sense of the main clause.

>
>Well, yes, I can. I _am_ claiming that that makes it additionally obvious
>that jtaylor was talking about the overall net effect, and it does.


Can you not see your problem?

You seem incapable of reading what people wrote but instead see what you assume
they *SHOULD* have written.

That in itself is not a problem, but you need to learn to distinguish between
what was ACTUALLY written and what you THINK the person intended to write.

Then you could stop this Quixotic campaign to prove that black is white.

>There certainly is, because of course when Tony wrote what he did he was
>denying what he thought you meant, not having realised you'd constructed
>this fantasy scenario.


See?

There you go again.

This time you are imputing to a third party this habit of not reading and
answering what people wrote but you thought they might have meant by what they
wrote.

You are unnecessarily complicating the whole communication process by
disregarding the normal rules of written English and substituting your own where
you can twist anything that is said and accuse anyone of anything by simply
substituting your own idea of what you think they should have said for what they
actually did say.

It is something commonly done by those unfortunate to suffer from paranoia.
Perhaps something you might like to have a little think about.
 
[email protected] wrote on 22/03/2007 13:55 +0100:
>
>
> That was a serious question - Can't be bothered to use the kill file,
> can I just kill him?
>


Please, please, please, you will be the hero of urc ;-)

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
 
On 22 Mar, 16:37, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote on 22/03/2007 13:55 +0100:
>
>
>
> > That was a serious question - Can't be bothered to use the kill file,
> > can I just kill him?

>
> Please, please, please, you will be the hero of urc ;-)
>
> --
> Tony
>
> "...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
> wildly inaccurate..."
> Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy



Ziggy,

I would like to arrange a meeting, I can meet you at a tube station in
central London. So the proprieties are observed could you wear a
heavy, dark coat and carry a table leg wrapped in a plastic bag.

Regards

Sniper8052
 
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 16:37:12 +0000, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote on 22/03/2007 13:55 +0100:
>>
>>
>> That was a serious question - Can't be bothered to use the kill file,
>> can I just kill him?
>>

>
>Please, please, please, you will be the hero of urc ;-)


I doubt he'll kill anyone, Tony.

Anyone who is so animal stupid that he continues to read a thread that is really
doing nothing more than going around in circles whiles claiming it is sapping
his will to live and then compounds the problem by making a post that is only
likely to stir it up all the more is rather likely to be too animal stupid to
kill anyone. (Or at least, anyone he actually wants to).

Sniper, why don't you sit back, eat a doughnut and relax rather than keep
reading threads which are sapping your will to live.
 
On 22 Mar 2007 09:47:58 -0700, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I would like to arrange a meeting, I can meet you at a tube station in
>central London. So the proprieties are observed could you wear a
>heavy, dark coat and carry a table leg wrapped in a plastic bag.


I don't think that would be a good idea.

Given that your mental state is such that you keep reading a thread that is
making you homicidal I very much doubt that you could do anything as ambitious
as managing to kill who you wanted to.

Why not just do what yo do best? Sit back, relax, have a doughnut, and fiddle
your overtime?
 
On 22 Mar, 16:51, [email protected] (Ziggy) wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 16:37:12 +0000, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
> >[email protected] wrote on 22/03/2007 13:55 +0100:

>
> >> That was a serious question - Can't be bothered to use the kill file,
> >> can I just kill him?

>
> >Please, please, please, you will be the hero of urc ;-)

>
> I doubt he'll kill anyone, Tony.
>
> Anyone who is so animal stupid that he continues to read a thread that is really
> doing nothing more than going around in circles whiles claiming it is sapping
> his will to live and then compounds the problem by making a post that is only
> likely to stir it up all the more is rather likely to be too animal stupid to
> kill anyone. (Or at least, anyone he actually wants to).
>
> Sniper, why don't you sit back, eat a doughnut and relax rather than keep
> reading threads which are sapping your will to live.



Cos your so daft it's fun being daft about you back and some of the
others find my humor more fun than your arguments.

Any how talking about you son not to you ...

Sniper8052
 
On 22 Mar 2007 10:01:03 -0700, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On 22 Mar, 16:51, [email protected] (Ziggy) wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 16:37:12 +0000, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >[email protected] wrote on 22/03/2007 13:55 +0100:

>>
>> >> That was a serious question - Can't be bothered to use the kill file,
>> >> can I just kill him?

>>
>> >Please, please, please, you will be the hero of urc ;-)

>>
>> I doubt he'll kill anyone, Tony.
>>
>> Anyone who is so animal stupid that he continues to read a thread that is really
>> doing nothing more than going around in circles whiles claiming it is sapping
>> his will to live and then compounds the problem by making a post that is only
>> likely to stir it up all the more is rather likely to be too animal stupid to
>> kill anyone. (Or at least, anyone he actually wants to).
>>
>> Sniper, why don't you sit back, eat a doughnut and relax rather than keep
>> reading threads which are sapping your will to live.

>
>
>Cos your so daft it's fun being daft about you back and some of the
>others find my humor more fun than your arguments.
>
>Any how talking about you son not to you ...


'sOK, sniper. I know that you're a fully paid up member of the idiot tendency.

Knew it as soon as you admitted that you'd kept up reading a thread that was
sapping your will to live.

Animal stupid, that ;-)
 
On 22 Mar, 16:57, [email protected] (Ziggy) wrote:
> On 22 Mar 2007 09:47:58 -0700, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >I would like to arrange a meeting, I can meet you at a tube station in
> >central London. So the proprieties are observed could you wear a
> >heavy, dark coat and carry a table leg wrapped in a plastic bag.

>
> I don't think that would be a good idea.
>
> Given that your mental state is such that you keep reading a thread that is
> making you homicidal I very much doubt that you could do anything as ambitious
> as managing to kill who you wanted to.
>
> Why not just do what yo do best? Sit back, relax, have a doughnut, and fiddle
> your overtime?



Trust me I am very good at killing people I want to. I may be out of
practice but I am sure I could still hit an 8" circle ar 1600m.

Sniper8052
 
On 22 Mar 2007 10:06:17 -0700, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Trust me I am very good at killing people I want to. I may be out of
>practice but I am sure I could still hit an 8" circle ar 1600m.


Given the current police record I wouldn't trust you to hit a 1600m circle at
8".

In fact I'd be quite surprised if you managed to avoid shooting yourself moe
than once in a blue moon.

Best stick to doughnuts and fiddling the old overtime, eh?
 
On 22 Mar, 17:10, [email protected] (Ziggy) wrote:
> On 22 Mar 2007 10:06:17 -0700, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Trust me I am very good at killing people I want to. I may be out of
> >practice but I am sure I could still hit an 8" circle ar 1600m.

>
> Given the current police record I wouldn't trust you to hit a 1600m circle at
> 8".
>
> In fact I'd be quite surprised if you managed to avoid shooting yourself moe
> than once in a blue moon.
>
> Best stick to doughnuts and fiddling the old overtime, eh?



The small end with the hole points away from the user.

Sniper8052
 
On 22 Mar 2007 10:13:09 -0700, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On 22 Mar, 17:10, [email protected] (Ziggy) wrote:
>> On 22 Mar 2007 10:06:17 -0700, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Trust me I am very good at killing people I want to. I may be out of
>> >practice but I am sure I could still hit an 8" circle ar 1600m.

>>
>> Given the current police record I wouldn't trust you to hit a 1600m circle at
>> 8".
>>
>> In fact I'd be quite surprised if you managed to avoid shooting yourself moe
>> than once in a blue moon.
>>
>> Best stick to doughnuts and fiddling the old overtime, eh?

>
>
>The small end with the hole points away from the user.


Wow, I'm impressed!

I expect you count as an advanced expert knowing such a wealth of technical
detail.

(I'm assuming that you do realise that you are the user. It would be sad if
there were any little misunderstandings when you seem to be doing *so* well.)
 
Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 21:54:04 +0000, Ekul Namsob <> wrote:
> > Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Obviously, this is tricky to grasp, but it's a complex field that
> > > very few people (Feynman, Dirac, Ziggy and Luke/Ekul) understand.

> >
> > By the way, my name is Luke. I would have thought you could have
> > grasped that by now.

>
> Then fix your news posting software, because it says your name is
> Ekul.


Oh, bless. You might like to consider fixing your news software which
fails to report my email address. Nowhere does this message claim that
Ekul Namsob is my name. It is an identity.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Lincoln City 0-2 Southend United (AET)
Swansea City 2-2 Southend United
We went up twice with Tilly and Brush
 
David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:

> Quoting Ziggy <[email protected]>:
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >>More accurately, they indicated it to one kook who was desperately trying
> >>to save his straw man. They didn't indicate it to me, or (as far as I can
> >>make out) to anyone else except dear Luke who is on the other old favourite
> >>kook track where he'll pin himself to any argument going.

> >That is not 'more accurate'. It is tendentious waffling.

>
> It is precisely accurate. You and Luke are the only people defending the
> absurd interpretation that supports your fantasy scenario.


Er, sorry? I didn't think this was a competition. Still, your name keeps
popping up in some of these arguments so one could suggest that you will
also pin yourself to any argument going.

Now, what about that suggestion I have repeatedly made that we try to
keep this discussion civil? There is no need for point scoring.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Lincoln City 0-2 Southend United (AET)
Swansea City 2-2 Southend United
We went up twice with Tilly and Brush
 
Quoting Ziggy <[email protected]>:
>Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Oi! There's a queue, you know? I'm in front of you!

>Come on guys, play nice, you can all join the idiot tendency.


"Everyone thinks I'm an idiot! What can be wrong with them?"

Your "idiot tendency" is fast growing to most of urc.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
Today is Second Leicesterday, March.
 

Similar threads