"flyingdutch" <
[email protected]> wrote
in message news:
[email protected]
>> No it didnt DRS
>> OK, perhaps i dont know Usenet inside out like you and all the
>> different types of features, etc but you claim that it included "a
>> bunch of other stuff" is pure rhubarb!
>
>> Oh, no it bloody isn't. And that is exactly the kind of dishonesty
>> I object to. It manifestly refers to several instances.
>
> All of which werent lieing, just your 'interpreation filter' going
> haywire again[/color]
I said it referred to a bunch of stuff, you said it didn't, I listed the
bunch of stuff it referred to. So whose interpretation is haywire?
>> Of course, it would have
>> made things clearer if you'd left the attributions in like you're
>> supposed to. ...
>
> Fair nuff. not meant to confuse. just brevity...
This is a classic example of why Usenet conventions and standards have
evolved as they have. Attributions matter. If you quote someone then you
are obligated to attribute properly.
>> This is also my text in that post, quoted from a previous post
>> ([email protected]):
>> "I never called Hippy an idiot; I never called Hitchy either stupid
>> or a fool (although in his case I confess to believing both to be
>> true); I never called anirm stupid or a fool. You're [sic] stuff up
>> out of thin air yet again."
>
>> All things you accused me of which were not true.
>
> Strange, cos all 3 commented (later in subsequent threads, private
> messages and in person) on how much you ****** them off!
Even if that is true (claiming support from Private Email is a source of
derision on Usenet since it is untestable without making public that which
was intended to be private, assuming it exists at all) it remains a fact
that I did not do the things you accused me of. And I most sincerely
couldn't give a stuff what Hitchy thinks.
[...]
> Yes but the same thread includes you stating that kids should not
> be/ride on paths at all. that was what I originally took you to task
> on, my perspective being they should be encouraged, not yelled at
That's called a strawman: an argument you make up, attribute to your
opponent, subsequently knock down and preen about how good you are. The
problem is *no-one* ever said kids shouldn't be on bike paths at all.
Once again, here's what I actually said: "If your kids can't keep left then
they shouldn't be riding on the path".
"If they can't or won't do the right thing then they should not be on the
bike paths at all."
"What people are saying in this thread is that kids should keep left and if
they can't or won't then they shouldn't be on the paths in the first place,
which is absolutely spot on."
"Some people need to realise that everybody has responsibilities in a shared
environment and that kids are not exempt."
If anybody cares, the thread is called "why do you ride on a shared path"
(9/3/04).
http://groups.google.com.au/groups?...afe=off&selm=404d7ad3_1%40news.iprimus.com.au
--
A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?