Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Tech Support?

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Tech Support?

 
 
Sandman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-23-2013
On 2013-10-23, Tony Cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>>>>> so the possibility remains of another weasel.
>>>>
>>>> Incorrect, again. That possibility only exists if you add
>>>> qualifiers to my statement, which of course you're inclined to do
>>>> since you know that as stated, the claim was 100% clear - only when
>>>> you add "could" qualifiers can it become ambiguous. The fact that
>>>> YOU are the one adding them and them not being actually present in
>>>> the original statement should be a hint of the thin ice you're
>>>> threading.
>>>
>>> We are dealing with a statement that already hinges on a
>>> "qualifier".

>>
>>Incorrect statement #1.
>>
>>> You have not always been known by the name nickname "Sandman".

>>
>>According to what source of information? This is an explicit claim
>>from Tony about me that he has not substantiated. Will he do so in his
>>followup?

>
> Is the statement incorrect? Have you always gone by the nickname
> "Sandman" including your life before Usenet?


Yes. But that's irrelevant, since the discussion was about usenet, not
"life before" usenet (or outside usenet). You are adding a diversion in
the hope that it will serve your purposes. You failed.

>> > The "qualifier" is "when posting to a newsgroup".

>
> Substantiate that "Sandman" has been your nickname since birth.


The burden of proof lies upon your shoulders, since it is your explicit
claim.

> Actually, I'll accept a clear-cut statement that has been your
> nickname since birth, the only nickname you've ever been known as, and
> the nickname was used throughout your entire life.


Your diversion is duly noted. The claim you made is that "same as
always" can mean something other than "same as always" without adding
qualifiers - you have failed to do so. Trying to move the scope of
"always" outside the scope of usenet, which was the question that was
asked, isn't helping you in your rather inefficient troll either.


--
Sandman[.net]
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Sandman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-23-2013
On 2013-10-23, PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>> Actually, I'll accept a clear-cut statement that has been your
>> nickname since birth, the only nickname you've ever been known as, and
>> the nickname was used throughout your entire life.

>
> You and i have been wasting pixels on the troll from the East coast of
> Scandinavia.


So stop "wasting pixels" being humiliated by your own weak trolling and stop posting ad hominems directed towards me - why not post to rec.photo.digital and try to improve your photography instead.


--
Sandman[.net]
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Sandman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-23-2013
On 2013-10-23, Whisky-dave <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>> > Is that always true as you've told me it isn't.

>>
>> I have told you no such thing. Now you're lying.

>
> I'm not lying I'm asking.


Where above is that question? No question mark and not forrmulated like a question.

>> > So what does always mean.

>>
>> Maybe you should consult a dictionary when you don't know what a word means?

>
> I know what it means


So stop asking me then.


>> > You said I can t say I always drink tea beacuase I'm not always drinking tea.

>>
>> Correct.

>
> So how can you use the word always....


I use it when appropriate by typing it or saying it. Is this really a serious question?


--
Sandman[.net]
 
Reply With Quote
 
Tony Cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-23-2013
On 23 Oct 2013 18:11:35 GMT, Sandman <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On 2013-10-23, Tony Cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>>>>> so the possibility remains of another weasel.
>>>>>
>>>>> Incorrect, again. That possibility only exists if you add
>>>>> qualifiers to my statement, which of course you're inclined to do
>>>>> since you know that as stated, the claim was 100% clear - only when
>>>>> you add "could" qualifiers can it become ambiguous. The fact that
>>>>> YOU are the one adding them and them not being actually present in
>>>>> the original statement should be a hint of the thin ice you're
>>>>> threading.
>>>>
>>>> We are dealing with a statement that already hinges on a
>>>> "qualifier".
>>>
>>>Incorrect statement #1.
>>>
>>>> You have not always been known by the name nickname "Sandman".
>>>
>>>According to what source of information? This is an explicit claim
>>>from Tony about me that he has not substantiated. Will he do so in his
>>>followup?

>>
>> Is the statement incorrect? Have you always gone by the nickname
>> "Sandman" including your life before Usenet?

>
>Yes. But that's irrelevant, since the discussion was about usenet, not
>"life before" usenet (or outside usenet). You are adding a diversion in
>the hope that it will serve your purposes. You failed.
>
>>> > The "qualifier" is "when posting to a newsgroup".

>>
>> Substantiate that "Sandman" has been your nickname since birth.

>
>The burden of proof lies upon your shoulders, since it is your explicit
>claim.
>
>> Actually, I'll accept a clear-cut statement that has been your
>> nickname since birth, the only nickname you've ever been known as, and
>> the nickname was used throughout your entire life.

>
>Your diversion is duly noted. The claim you made is that "same as
>always" can mean something other than "same as always" without adding
>qualifiers - you have failed to do so. Trying to move the scope of
>"always" outside the scope of usenet, which was the question that was
>asked, isn't helping you in your rather inefficient troll either.


That's an interesting perspective. "Always" began the first time you
inflicted yourself in a newsgroup.

You - a person who believes in strict dictionary definitions - are
quite willing to bend the definition of "always" to suit your purpose.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
 
Reply With Quote
 
Tony Cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-23-2013
On 23 Oct 2013 18:18:34 GMT, Sandman <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On 2013-10-23, Whisky-dave <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>> > Is that always true as you've told me it isn't.
>>>
>>> I have told you no such thing. Now you're lying.

>>
>> I'm not lying I'm asking.

>
>Where above is that question? No question mark and not forrmulated like a question.


Exactly what I was wondering when you asked me to respond to a
question not asked.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
 
Reply With Quote
 
Sandman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-23-2013
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Tony Cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >>> > Is that always true as you've told me it isn't.
> >>>
> >>> I have told you no such thing. Now you're lying.
> >>
> >> I'm not lying I'm asking.

> >
> >Where above is that question? No question mark and not forrmulated like a question.

>
> Exactly what I was wondering when you asked me to respond to a
> question not asked.


As you were right to do. Thanks for sharing from your rich and interesting life, Tony.

--
Sandman[.net]
 
Reply With Quote
 
Sandman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-23-2013
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Tony Cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > Your diversion is duly noted. The claim you made is that "same as
> > always" can mean something other than "same as always" without adding
> > qualifiers - you have failed to do so. Trying to move the scope of
> > "always" outside the scope of usenet, which was the question that was
> > asked, isn't helping you in your rather inefficient troll either.

>
> That's an interesting perspective. "Always" began the first time you
> inflicted yourself in a newsgroup.


Incorrect statement #1.

> You - a person who believes in strict dictionary definitions - are
> quite willing to bend the definition of "always" to suit your purpose.


Incorrect statement #2.


--
Sandman[.net]
 
Reply With Quote
 
Sandman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-23-2013
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > > So how can you use the word always....

> >
> > I use it when appropriate by typing it or saying it. Is this really a serious question?

>
> I think it is.


Why am I not surprised.

> If Whisky-dave can't properly say he 'always' drinks tea because he is not 'always' drinking tea then neither can you properly claim to 'always'
> be known as Sandman on the Internet for the simple reason that you are not 'always' on the Internet.


Incorrect. I can correctly claim that my alias was "same as always" based on the fact that my alias was the same as it has always been.

Diversion number three noted.

> This may seem a trivial bit of quibbling


Which, of course, is why you're the one posting it. You guys can argue about *ANYTHING*. For days, weeks. Any little detail will be argued about. For as long as you can possibly do it.

> but if you interepret it rigidly it leads to an impasse which can only be resolved if you qualify the respective usages of the word 'always'.


As used, that was not necessary. As you know.

> The qualification of the respective usages can be implicit rather than explicit but, either way, you have consistently denied that any such
> qualification is either present or necessary.


Correctly so.

--
Sandman[.net]
 
Reply With Quote
 
Sandman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-23-2013
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >>> should be a hint of the thin ice you're threading.
> >>> treading.
> >>
> >> should be aware of the thin ice on which you are treading.

> >
> >Incorrect.

>
> My correction was grammatic.


Incorrect, your alternate version carried a totally different meaning than mine did.

> Are you saying that I was wrong?


If you meant to offer a more correct or clearer version of what I wrote; yes.


--
Sandman[.net]
 
Reply With Quote
 
Tony Cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-23-2013
On 23 Oct 2013 21:34:59 GMT, Sandman <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Incorrect. I can correctly claim that my alias was "same as always" based on the fact that my alias was the same as it has always been.


In other words, you may have posted under the name of "Jonas" because
that is not an alias.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
OT: MSN Tech Support Keyboard Cowboy MCSE 6 10-08-2004 01:32 AM
[OT] Offshore tech support T-Bone MCSE 4 09-27-2004 02:40 PM
Russian PC Support Tech: HEAR ME ROAR Wilhelm Scjlezieky MCSE 23 07-27-2004 06:08 PM
OT: Dell cancels India tech support? Freddy MCSE 8 11-26-2003 08:25 PM
OT: My local ISP Tech support - incompetence at it's very best S. O'Brien MCSE 1 11-03-2003 06:26 PM



Advertisments