«

wrote:
> wrote:
> > I don't blame others for my mistake. I made a mistake because of an
> > ambiguous sentence. I've told you this many times. Talk about lack of
> > reading comprehension.

> See, you've just proven my point. you are blaming *YOUR* mistake

Yes. *My* mistake.

> on the other posters "ambiguious sentence"

Even, gandrwedd, the "other poster" admits it was ambiguous. Yes, I
made a mistake. The ambiguous nature of the sentence is what caused
it, but it was my mistake.

> even though "52 extra issues" is *NOT* ambiguous

That is why I questioned the 52 issues part, because it didn't gel with
the rest of the sentence.

> and *YOU* were the *ONLY* person to make that mistake
> (the only other person to mention 40 was Aaron and he did so only
> because he was replying to a reply to where *YOU* introduced it into
> the conversion, NOT in reply to the origional post).

It seems like that if you read specific posts, but he denies that when
asked by email.

> > No, I'm stalking you to see if you're as bad on other groups.
> If that's what you have to tell yourself in order to feel better about
> your sad little existance as a stalker.

Yeah, pretty much.

> But hey, I'm giving you the attention you are craving by replying to you, so your day
> can't be all bad.

Well, I'm really getting the attention I crave from the sensible
conversations I'm having with gandrwedd and Ophidean on the original
thread and on other topics. Interestingly of the three of you who
originally told me that "52 isn't 40" until I worked out where the real
misunderstanding was, you're the only one still hanging on to the lie.

Why is this? Are you smart that all three of us, too stubborn to admit
you're wrong or too stupid to know?

===
= DUG.
===

wrote:
> wrote:
> > wrote:
> > > I don't blame others for my mistake. I made a mistake because of an
> > > ambiguous sentence. I've told you this many times. Talk about lack of
> > > reading comprehension.
>
> > See, you've just proven my point. you are blaming *YOUR* mistake
>
> Yes. *My* mistake.

Yes and it took several days for you to admit that and even STILL you
blame your mistake on others as evidenced by the sentence:

> The ambiguous nature of the sentence is what caused
> it, but it was my mistake.

Sorry but there was nothing ambiguous about it when read in context.
not only was 52 issues specified, but the following sentence expounded
upon what was meant.

> That is why I questioned the 52 issues part, because it didn't gel with
> the rest of the sentence.

But it did gel with the rest of the sentence and the one that followed
it that expounded on the idea being reprented, which is why people even
worked out the math for you and you still weren't getting it. and once
you did get it you still continued to blame others for your mistake.

> > If that's what you have to tell yourself in order to feel better about
> > your sad little existance as a stalker.
>
> Yeah, pretty much.

well, good to know you realize how sad and pathetic you are.

> > But hey, I'm giving you the attention you are craving by replying to you, so your day
> > can't be all bad.
>
> Well, I'm really getting the attention I crave from the sensible
> conversations I'm having with gandrwedd and Ophidean on the original
> thread and on other topics.

If that were true you wouldn't be stalking me across the net and
continually replying to me about this same topic over and over and
over. face it you crave my attention and I'm willing to take enough
pity on you to give it.

> Interestingly of the three of you who
> originally told me that "52 isn't 40" until I worked out where the real
> misunderstanding was, you're the only one still hanging on to the lie.

1) it's not a lie, it the truth no matter how much you wish to lie
about.
2) the only reason I'm "still hanging on to it" is because *YOU*
stalked me to an unrelated newsgroup and claimed I lied, thus I
explained what the bee was in your bonnet. If you hadn't noticed, I
haven't posted a thing about the 52 vs 40 in the original thread in
days. If you hadn't of come stalking after my attention, this issue
would have been dropped long ago. You wanted my attention. You got me
attention. seems rather silly of you to then complain about getting the
attention you so desperately desired.

> Are you smart that all three of us, too stubborn to admit you're wrong or too stupid to know?

??? so much for your ficticious English degree, that made no sense.
Fortunately, with a little bit of reading comprehension (a skill you
have yet to learn) I can determine that what you were TRYING to say was
"are you smarter than all three of us...". All three? I don't know
about the other two (and normally I don't really care about who is
smarter than whom), but judging on what I've seen you post so far, it
certainly seems to me that I'm smarter than you. Perhaps in real life
you are much smarter than your posts indicate, but I've seen no sign of
it online. BTW it's rather obvious that you are the one "too stubborn
to admit you're wrong ot too stupid to know" hence your stalking me
over an issue that otherwise would have stopped being an issue days
ago.

wrote:

> > See, you've just proven my point. you are blaming *YOUR* mistake
>
> Yes. *My* mistake.
>
> > on the other posters "ambiguious sentence"
>
> Even, gandrwedd, the "other poster" admits it was ambiguous. Yes, I
> made a mistake. The ambiguous nature of the sentence is what caused
> it, but it was my mistake.

And here we see who the REAL liar is.

Duggy: "It's just combine with your ambiguous sentence structure and
your inability to recognise that, I thought there was a legitimate
problem:

gandrwedd: "sorry, I can't let this go.

My sentence structure is just fine. Atleast, it's not inferior to
yours. Let's look at your communication skills"

after which he nitpicked your posts the way you've been nitpicking
others.

I know you are desperate for my attention, but we are really rather OT
for this news group and this thread.

wrote:
> wrote:
> And here we see who the REAL liar is.

<snipping a post other than the one I was talking about>

Yeah, thanks, helpful.

> I know you are desperate for my attention, but we are really rather OT
> for this news group and this thread.

Good point. Stop replying.

===
= DUG.
===

Duggy wrote:
> > but we are really rather OT
> > for this news group and this thread.
>
> Good point. Stop replying.

If I did that, then you wouldn't get the attention you so desperately
crave. I'm just not that mean.

wrote:

> Yes and it took several days for you to admit that

Mistake made on the 21st March, first admition of mistake 22nd.
Once again, you have completely misused the word several.
And yet you talk about comprehension and mathematical difficulties.

> and even STILL you
> blame your mistake on others as evidenced by the sentence:

My mistake. It's not without contributing factors, but it's nobody
else's fault.

Why are you refusing, over and over, to accept this?

> Sorry but there was nothing ambiguous about it when read in context.
> not only was 52 issues specified, but the following sentence expounded
> upon what was meant.

The following sentence, in the singular use of title, seemed to mean 4
or 5 series a month getting the 52 extra issues.

> But it did gel with the rest of the sentence and the one that followed
> it that expounded on the idea being reprented, which is why people even
> worked out the math for you and you still weren't getting it. and once
> you did get it you still continued to blame others for your mistake.

So you seem to want to keep pretending.

> well, good to know you realize how sad and pathetic you are.

Yup. Your turn, or aren't you ready yet?

> If that were true you wouldn't be stalking me across the net and
> continually replying to me about this same topic over and over and
> over. face it you crave my attention and I'm willing to take enough
> pity on you to give it.

It's up to you, you can either stop feeding the troll or you can admit
that I've admitting my mistake, despite your continued
misrepresentations of actual events.

> > Interestingly of the three of you who
> > originally told me that "52 isn't 40" until I worked out where the real
> > misunderstanding was, you're the only one still hanging on to the lie.
> 1) it's not a lie, it the truth no matter how much you wish to lie about.

Do you mean "it is the truth"?

I never thought that 52 wasn't 40. I questioned whether 52 extra
issues of an ongoing title was correct when making it a weekly would
only require forty.

Had I realised that the use of series meant titles not title, I would
not have thought it was a mistake.

At no point did I think that 52 was 40, please come to terms with that.

> 2) the only reason I'm "still hanging on to it" is because *YOU*
> stalked me to an unrelated newsgroup and claimed I lied,

You did.

thus I
> explained what the bee was in your bonnet. If you hadn't noticed, I
> haven't posted a thing about the 52 vs 40 in the original thread in
> days. If you hadn't of come stalking after my attention, this issue
> would have been dropped long ago.

With that lie still standing.

> ??? so much for your ficticious English degree, that made no sense.
> Fortunately, with a little bit of reading comprehension (a skill you
> have yet to learn) I can determine that what you were TRYING to say was
> "are you smarter than all three of us...".

Never made a mistake? No. You made one in this post.

My BA(Eng) is real, but let's just make that a mistaken belief of yours
rather than a lie, because you aren't to know.

> All three? I don't know
> about the other two (and normally I don't really care about who is
> smarter than whom), but judging on what I've seen you post so far, it
> certainly seems to me that I'm smarter than you.

Maybe in selophane-64 land.

> Perhaps in real life you are much smarter than your posts indicate,

But my degree is ficitious?

> BTW it's rather obvious that you are the one "too stubborn
> to admit you're wrong ot too stupid to know" hence your stalking me
> over an issue that otherwise would have stopped being an issue days
> ago.

I've admitted I'm wrong. Over and over. So, no, I'm not too stupid to
know. Yet you keep making the accusation.

But, yeah, I'm stubborn. If I've been lied about, I'm not going to let
the person run away with it still in the air.

===
= DUG.
===

Duggy <> wrote:

> wrote:
>
> > Yes and it took several days for you to admit that
>
> Mistake made on the 21st March, first admition of mistake 22nd.

Get a room, guys.

--
^Ï^

Duggy wrote:

> > and even STILL you
> > blame your mistake on others as evidenced by the sentence:
>
> My mistake. It's not without contributing factors, but it's nobody
> else's fault.

Then stop blaming it on "ambiguous" sentences that were nothing of the
sort. Otherwise the TRUTH stands: you CONTINUE to blame your mistakes
on others.

> Why are you refusing, over and over, to accept this?

Because your actions don't match your words as you are STILL blaming
*YOUR* mistake on an ambiguous sentence that was *NOT* ambiguous. AND
because you keep it going by stalking me to other boards when the issue
would have died days ago.

> > Sorry but there was nothing ambiguous about it when read in context.
> > not only was 52 issues specified, but the following sentence expounded
> > upon what was meant.
>
> The following sentence, in the singular use of title, seemed to mean 4
> or 5 series a month getting the 52 extra issues.

Which simple math would lead most people making such a mistake to ask
if they really meant for there to be 64 (the normal 12 + the 52 extra)
issues a year or simply say "I'm not sure what you meant, can you
please clarify".

> > But it did gel with the rest of the sentence and the one that followed
> > it that expounded on the idea being reprented, which is why people even
> > worked out the math for you and you still weren't getting it. and once
> > you did get it you still continued to blame others for your mistake.
>
> So you seem to want to keep pretending.

So is the reality. You are the one pretending it was "ambiguous" so you
can blame *YOUR* mistake on someone else.

> > well, good to know you realize how sad and pathetic you are.
>
> Yup. Your turn, or aren't you ready yet?

I'm not the one stalking people to non-related groups in a desperate
bid for attention.

> > If that were true you wouldn't be stalking me across the net and
> > continually replying to me about this same topic over and over and
> > over. face it you crave my attention and I'm willing to take enough
> > pity on you to give it.
>
> It's up to you, you can either stop feeding the troll or you can admit
> that I've admitting my mistake, despite your continued
> misrepresentations of actual events.

the only misrepresentations have been yours. When you stop blaming your
mistake on others, then I'll accept that you've fully admitted your
mistake.

> > > Interestingly of the three of you who
> > > originally told me that "52 isn't 40" until I worked out where the real
> > > misunderstanding was, you're the only one still hanging on to the lie.
> > 1) it's not a lie, it the truth no matter how much you wish to lie about.
>
> Do you mean "it is the truth"?

Yes.

> > 2) the only reason I'm "still hanging on to it" is because *YOU*
> > stalked me to an unrelated newsgroup and claimed I lied,
>
> You did.

No, I did not. But you continue to lie about the situation by claiming
I did. Get over it and grow up.

> thus I
> > explained what the bee was in your bonnet. If you hadn't noticed, I
> > haven't posted a thing about the 52 vs 40 in the original thread in
> > days. If you hadn't of come stalking after my attention, this issue
> > would have been dropped long ago.
>
> With that lie still standing.

There was NO lie (other than your lie about me).

> > ??? so much for your ficticious English degree, that made no sense.
> > Fortunately, with a little bit of reading comprehension (a skill you
> > have yet to learn) I can determine that what you were TRYING to say was
> > "are you smarter than all three of us...".
>
> Never made a mistake? No. You made one in this post.

Yes, I've made mistakes. what I don't make a habit of (unlike you) is
jumping all over every little typo other people make while claiming to
have an English degree all the while (and quite ironically) making just
as many/just as bad typo/spelling/grammatical mistakes as the ones
being jumped on. I also don't go around blaming my mistakes on other
peoples postings.

> My BA(Eng) is real, but let's just make that a mistaken belief of yours
> rather than a lie, because you aren't to know.

I wouldn't question it's existance if you didn't act like such an ass,
jumping on other peoples typos/spelling/grammatical mistakes and
touting your ficticious degree while at the same time makes just as
many/just as bad typos/spelling/grammatical mistakes. or more simply
put PKB.

> > Perhaps in real life you are much smarter than your posts indicate,
>
> But my degree is ficitious?

The posts you have made certainly put it's existance in doubt.

> > BTW it's rather obvious that you are the one "too stubborn
> > to admit you're wrong ot too stupid to know" hence your stalking me
> > over an issue that otherwise would have stopped being an issue days
> > ago.
>
> I've admitted I'm wrong. Over and over.

That stop blaming it on others.

> So, no, I'm not too stupid to
> know. Yet you keep making the accusation.

Because you keep stalking me to other boards (hence too stubborn)
claiming I lied about you while you STILL blame your mistake on others
(hence too stupid).

> But, yeah, I'm stubborn. If I've been lied about, I'm not going to let
> the person run away with it still in the air.

Since you haven't been lied about, your are too stupid as well as too
stubborn.

wrote:
> Then stop blaming it on "ambiguous" sentences that were nothing of the
> sort.

It was ambiguous. The sentence does deserve some of the blame because
of it, however, most of the blame goes to me. Enough that it was my
mistake not G's.

Having said this over and over, I'm wondering why you can't accept it.

> Otherwise the TRUTH stands: you CONTINUE to blame your mistakes
> on others.

So you keep saying.

> Because your actions don't match your words as you are STILL blaming
> *YOUR* mistake on an ambiguous sentence that was *NOT* ambiguous.

It was ambiguous. Just because you can't see that doesn't make it
untrue.

> AND because you keep it going by stalking me to other boards when the issue
> would have died days ago.

It'll die when you stop your lies.

> Which simple math would lead most people making such a mistake to ask
> if they really meant for there to be 64 (the normal 12 + the 52 extra)
> issues a year or simply say "I'm not sure what you meant, can you
> please clarify".

You can ask if the person really means 64 issues (12 plus an extra 52)
or if they really meant 40 extra issues (52 minus 12) rather than 52.

Either way means the same thing. Why can you accept one but not the
other?

> > So you seem to want to keep pretending.
> So is the reality. You are the one pretending it was "ambiguous" so you
> can blame *YOUR* mistake on someone else.

In your reality.

> > > well, good to know you realize how sad and pathetic you are.
> > Yup. Your turn, or aren't you ready yet?
> I'm not the one stalking people to non-related groups in a desperate
> bid for attention.

True, true.

> the only misrepresentations have been yours. When you stop blaming your
> mistake on others, then I'll accept that you've fully admitted your
> mistake.

OK, will you accept that, although I haven't accepted the mistake
fully, that I have excepted that it was my mistake, that I made it, and
while the sentence was ambiguous it was my mistake?

> There was NO lie (other than your lie about me).

Because you realise that I have, for over a week been admitting that it
was my mistake, you've started to add the word "fully", so that you can
hide behind a new phrase and claim you haven't been lying.

Tricky.

> > My BA(Eng) is real, but let's just make that a mistaken belief of yours
> > rather than a lie, because you aren't to know.
> I wouldn't question it's existance if you didn't act like such an ass,

Acting like an ass=no degree.

Wow. You do have a refined sense of logic.

> > I've admitted I'm wrong. Over and over.
> That stop blaming it on others.

Learn to read.

> Because you keep stalking me to other boards (hence too stubborn)

Yeah, I admit that. If only you'd read what you're replying to.

> claiming I lied about you while you STILL blame your mistake on others
> (hence too stupid).

You're to stupid to understand that "It was my mistake" means "It was
my mistake"

> Since you haven't been lied about, your are too stupid as well as too
> stubborn.

Keep up the lies.

===
= DUG.
===

wrote:
> Duggy wrote:
> > > but we are really rather OT
> > > for this news group and this thread.
> > Good point. Stop replying.
> If I did that, then you wouldn't get the attention you so desperately
> crave. I'm just not that mean.

Well, it's being mean to me or to your newsgroup, it's your choice.

I mean, that's why the sign says "Don't feed the troll."

===
= DUG.
===