Re: Xnews out of memory problem

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Paul.Duggan@jcu.edu.au, Mar 30, 2006.

  1. Guest

    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.
    ===
    , Mar 30, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Guest

    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.
    , Mar 30, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Guest

    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.
    , Mar 30, 2006
    #3
  4. Duggy Guest

    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, Mar 30, 2006
    #4
  5. Guest

    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.
    , Mar 30, 2006
    #5
  6. Duggy Guest

    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, Mar 30, 2006
    #6
  7. Sn!pe Guest

    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^
    Sn!pe, Mar 30, 2006
    #7
  8. Guest

    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.
    , Mar 30, 2006
    #8
  9. Duggy Guest

    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.
    ===
    Duggy, Mar 31, 2006
    #9
  10. Duggy Guest

    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.
    ===
    Duggy, Mar 31, 2006
    #10
  11. Guest

    Duggy wrote:
    > 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,


    No it wasn't so no it doesn't.

    > however, most of the blame goes to me. Enough that it was my
    > mistake not G's.


    All of the blame is yours.

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


    I'm not the one who kept this going by stalking someone to an unrelated
    board.

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

    >
    > So you keep saying.


    because it's the truth.

    > > 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.


    It wasn't ambiguious, just because you refuse to admit it doesn't
    change that fact.

    > > 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.


    Since the only one lying here is you.

    > > > 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.


    Better than your fanatsy.

    > > 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?


    All but the part there you continue to put some of the blame on the
    sentence instead of where it blongs, on you. Why is my acceptance so
    important to you?

    > > 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.


    The first time you accused me of lying, it wasn't about your mistake
    but about you being the only one who made it. Since it has been proven
    that you were the only one who made it (the only other poster to
    mention 40 vs 52 did so in response to a response to you NOT a response
    to the origional post that you blame for your mistake) you've shifted
    your accusation about what I supposedly lied about. Tricky,

    > > > I've admitted I'm wrong. Over and over.

    > > That stop blaming it on others.

    >
    > Learn to read.


    LOL. Learn to comprehend what you read and not blame others when you
    fail to do so.

    > > 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"


    What part of "you're still blaming others (the so-called ambiguious
    sentence)" do you not understand?

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

    >
    > Keep up the lies.


    you certainly have been. As long as you keep lying I'll keep correcting
    you and this will never end (no doubt annoying the hell out of the
    unrelated NG that you've stalked this issue to) is that really what you
    want? If so, keep lying.
    , Mar 31, 2006
    #11
  12. Guest

    Duggy wrote:
    > 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."


    It's not exactly "my" newsgroup, as I've only participated in all of
    two threads here (which is why I haven't even set the alias name that I
    use on the comic book groups) and that only days before you stalked me
    here. So you want my attention, keep lying and you'll keep getting it.
    , Mar 31, 2006
    #12
  13. Guest

    wrote:
    > Duggy wrote:
    > > 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."

    >
    > It's not exactly "my" newsgroup, as I've only participated in all of
    > two threads here (which is why I haven't even set the alias name that I
    > use on the comic book groups) and that only days before you stalked me
    > here. So you want my attention, keep lying and you'll keep getting it.


    The newsgroup I was refering to and replying from (and in which the
    thread that he hijacked originated) was "news.software.readers", I see
    Dummy has crossposted his stalking to alt.video.dvd which I've posted
    to infrequently in the past.
    , Mar 31, 2006
    #13
  14. Duggy Guest

    wrote:
    > No it wasn't so no it doesn't.


    You're the only one still making that claim.

    > All of the blame is yours.


    No.

    > I'm not the one who kept this going by stalking someone to an unrelated
    > board.


    And?

    > because it's the truth.


    Your self-interested version of it.

    > It wasn't ambiguious, just because you refuse to admit it doesn't
    > change that fact.


    It was, and you know it.

    > Since the only one lying here is you.


    Sentence fragment.

    > Better than your fanatsy.


    Your reality is a better fantasy than my fantasy, yeah. But at least
    my reality is real.

    > All but the part there you continue to put some of the blame on the
    > sentence instead of where it blongs, on you. Why is my acceptance so
    > important to you?


    Because I love you.

    > The first time you accused me of lying, it wasn't about your mistake
    > but about you being the only one who made it.


    No, I think the most vocal and abusive time I did was, though.

    > Since it has been proven that you were the only one who made it


    You had some tricky logic and it did make me stop and relook. And yes,
    there is no way you can tell from the posts whether he was referring to
    my replies or the post I was replying to. Emailing the poster
    revealled he was referring to my posts, by that included the sentence,
    and he read it that way too.

    > (the only other poster to
    > mention 40 vs 52 did so in response to a response to you NOT a response
    > to the origional post that you blame for your mistake)


    Really?

    > you've shifted your accusation about what I supposedly lied about.


    I've accepted that it could be seen the way you said, so I'll let you
    claim it if you really want.

    > Tricky,


    Tricky...?

    > LOL. Learn to comprehend what you read and not blame others when you
    > fail to do so.


    An ambiguous sentence is an ambiguous sentence.

    > What part of "you're still blaming others (the so-called ambiguious
    > sentence)" do you not understand?


    Series can be plural or singular. Do you not understand that?

    > you certainly have been. As long as you keep lying I'll keep correcting
    > you and this will never end (no doubt annoying the hell out of the
    > unrelated NG that you've stalked this issue to) is that really what you
    > want? If so, keep lying.


    Well, it doesn't really worry me.

    ===
    = DUG.
    ===
    Duggy, Mar 31, 2006
    #14
  15. Duggy Guest

    wrote:
    > It's not exactly "my" newsgroup, as I've only participated in all of
    > two threads here (which is why I haven't even set the alias name that I
    > use on the comic book groups) and that only days before you stalked me
    > here. So you want my attention, keep lying and you'll keep getting it.


    Well, it's certainly not my newsgroup.

    ===
    = DUG.
    ===
    Duggy, Mar 31, 2006
    #15
  16. Duggy Guest

    wrote:
    > The newsgroup I was refering to and replying from (and in which the
    > thread that he hijacked originated) was "news.software.readers", I see
    > Dummy has crossposted his stalking to alt.video.dvd which I've posted
    > to infrequently in the past.


    Hehehe, "Dummy" that's funny.

    ===
    = DUM
    ===
    Duggy, Mar 31, 2006
    #16
  17. selaboc Guest

    Duggy wrote:
    > wrote:
    > > No it wasn't so no it doesn't.

    >
    > You're the only one still making that claim.
    >
    > > All of the blame is yours.

    >
    > No.


    Sorry, but it STILL is all yours.

    > > It wasn't ambiguious, just because you refuse to admit it doesn't
    > > change that fact.

    >
    > It was, and you know it.


    It wasn't and you know it.

    > > Since the only one lying here is you.

    >
    > Sentence fragment.


    yes it was. Noticed it after I posted. Didn't care enough to post a
    correction.

    > > Better than your fanatsy.

    >
    > Your reality


    *IS* the real reality.

    > is a better fantasy than my fantasy, yeah. But at least
    > my reality is real.


    In your dreams.

    > > All but the part there you continue to put some of the blame on the
    > > sentence instead of where it blongs, on you. Why is my acceptance so
    > > important to you?

    >
    > Because I love you.


    Sorry, I don't swing that way.

    > > The first time you accused me of lying, it wasn't about your mistake
    > > but about you being the only one who made it.

    >
    > No, I think the most vocal and abusive time I did was, though.


    liar

    > > Since it has been proven that you were the only one who made it

    >
    > You had some tricky logic and it did make me stop and relook. And yes,
    > there is no way you can tell from the posts whether he was referring to
    > my replies or the post I was replying to. Emailing the poster
    > revealled he was referring to my posts, by that included the sentence,
    > and he read it that way too.


    So you claim. Google tells the story of what did happen, not what you
    wish happened.

    > > (the only other poster to
    > > mention 40 vs 52 did so in response to a response to you NOT a response
    > > to the origional post that you blame for your mistake)

    >
    > Really?


    really!

    > > you've shifted your accusation about what I supposedly lied about.

    >
    > I've accepted that it could be seen the way you said, so I'll let you
    > claim it if you really want.


    how kind.

    > > LOL. Learn to comprehend what you read and not blame others when you
    > > fail to do so.

    >
    > An ambiguous sentence is an ambiguous sentence.


    And the one you claim was, wasn't

    > > What part of "you're still blaming others (the so-called ambiguious
    > > sentence)" do you not understand?

    >
    > Series can be plural or singular. Do you not understand that?


    Read in context. You do know what context is, since you claim to have
    an English degree, one would assume that is something (along with
    reading comprehension) you'd have to have learned in order to get one.
    It's the lack of evidence that you have learned those things (based
    solely on the posts you've made) that lead me to the conclusion that
    your degree is ficticious.

    > > you certainly have been. As long as you keep lying I'll keep correcting
    > > you and this will never end (no doubt annoying the hell out of the
    > > unrelated NG that you've stalked this issue to) is that really what you
    > > want? If so, keep lying.

    >
    > Well, it doesn't really worry me.


    Why do you think it worries me? I'm not the one demanding acceptance
    from others.
    selaboc, Mar 31, 2006
    #17
  18. Duggy Guest

    selaboc wrote:
    > Duggy wrote:
    > > wrote:
    > > > No it wasn't so no it doesn't.

    > > You're the only one still making that claim.
    > > > All of the blame is yours.

    > > No.

    > Sorry, but it STILL is all yours.


    Isn't.

    > > > It wasn't ambiguious, just because you refuse to admit it doesn't
    > > > change that fact.

    > > It was, and you know it.

    > It wasn't and you know it.


    Was.

    > > > Since the only one lying here is you.

    > > Sentence fragment.

    > yes it was. Noticed it after I posted. Didn't care enough to post a
    > correction.


    Fair enough. Why is it mistakes are far more obvious the second you
    hit send?

    > > > Better than your fanatsy.

    > > Your reality

    > *IS* the real reality.


    Isn't.

    > > is a better fantasy than my fantasy, yeah. But at least
    > > my reality is real.

    > In your dreams.


    No. In my dreams is fantasy. My reality is real.

    > > Because I love you.

    > Sorry, I don't swing that way.


    You like men?

    > > No, I think the most vocal and abusive time I did was, though.

    > liar


    Nope.

    > So you claim. Google tells the story of what did happen, not what you
    > wish happened.


    Google agrees with me.

    > really!


    Not really.

    > > I've accepted that it could be seen the way you said, so I'll let you
    > > claim it if you really want.

    > how kind.


    Very.

    > > An ambiguous sentence is an ambiguous sentence.

    > And the one you claim was, wasn't


    You are the only one who thinks it.

    > Read in context.


    The context wasn't helpful.

    > You do know what context is, since you claim to have
    > an English degree, one would assume that is something (along with
    > reading comprehension)


    You say I don't have that. Which is it?

    > you'd have to have learned in order to get one.
    > It's the lack of evidence that you have learned those things (based
    > solely on the posts you've made) that lead me to the conclusion that
    > your degree is ficticious.


    Your conclusion is false. That's hardly unsual.

    > Why do you think it worries me? I'm not the one demanding acceptance
    > from others.


    Then who is?

    ===
    = DUG.
    ===
    Duggy, Apr 1, 2006
    #18
  19. selaboc Guest

    Duggy wrote:
    > selaboc wrote:
    > > Duggy wrote:
    > > > wrote:
    > > > > No it wasn't so no it doesn't.
    > > > You're the only one still making that claim.
    > > > > All of the blame is yours.
    > > > No.

    > > Sorry, but it STILL is all yours.

    >
    > Isn't.


    *IS*

    > > > > It wasn't ambiguious, just because you refuse to admit it doesn't
    > > > > change that fact.
    > > > It was, and you know it.

    > > It wasn't and you know it.

    >
    > Was.


    wasn't

    > > > > Since the only one lying here is you.
    > > > Sentence fragment.

    > > yes it was. Noticed it after I posted. Didn't care enough to post a
    > > correction.

    >
    > Fair enough. Why is it mistakes are far more obvious the second you
    > hit send?


    One of life's ironies

    > > > > Better than your fanatsy.
    > > > Your reality

    > > *IS* the real reality.

    >
    > Isn't.


    *IS*

    > > > is a better fantasy than my fantasy, yeah. But at least
    > > > my reality is real.

    > > In your dreams.

    >
    > No. In my dreams is fantasy. My reality is real.


    You're deluded,

    > > > Because I love you.

    > > Sorry, I don't swing that way.

    >
    > You like men?


    No Paul, I don't. I like women. Which a troll-boy like you isn't.

    > > > No, I think the most vocal and abusive time I did was, though.

    > > liar

    >
    > Nope.


    Yep.
    Or should I be saying Duck season?

    > > So you claim. Google tells the story of what did happen, not what you
    > > wish happened.

    >
    > Google agrees with me.
    >
    > > really!

    >
    > Not really.


    Yes, really!

    > > Read in context.

    >
    > The context wasn't helpful.


    Yes it was. the following sentence (part of the context) was an
    amplification on the idea which, had you applied some simple math
    skills, would have told you that the poster was NOT talking about 40
    extra when he said 52 extra.

    > > You do know what context is, since you claim to have
    > > an English degree, one would assume that is something (along with
    > > reading comprehension)

    >
    > You say I don't have that. Which is it?


    Apparently you don't, which is why I said if you did, it would have
    been something you would have to have learned. Since you obviously
    didn't learn it, your claims to a degree appear ficticious. You want me
    to believe you have a degree, start showing some comprehension and
    understanding of context.

    > > you'd have to have learned in order to get one.
    > > It's the lack of evidence that you have learned those things (based
    > > solely on the posts you've made) that lead me to the conclusion that
    > > your degree is ficticious.

    >
    > Your conclusion is false. That's hardly unsual.


    You are wrong, as usual.

    > > Why do you think it worries me? I'm not the one demanding acceptance
    > > from others.

    >
    > Then who is?


    you are the one demanding acceptance by stalking me across the net and
    making up lies about me.
    selaboc, Apr 3, 2006
    #19
  20. Dummy Guest

    selaboc wrote:

    > > > > > All of the blame is yours.
    > > > > No.
    > > > Sorry, but it STILL is all yours.

    > > Isn't.

    > *IS*


    *IS* not.

    > > > > > It wasn't ambiguious, just because you refuse to admit it doesn't
    > > > > > change that fact.
    > > > > It was, and you know it.
    > > > It wasn't and you know it.

    > > Was.

    > wasn't


    *WAS*

    > > Fair enough. Why is it mistakes are far more obvious the second you
    > > hit send?

    > One of life's ironies


    Someone up there hates us.

    > > > > > Better than your fanatsy.
    > > > > Your reality
    > > > *IS* the real reality.

    > > Isn't.

    > *IS*


    *IS* not.

    > > No. In my dreams is fantasy. My reality is real.

    > You're deluded,


    You are.

    > > > > Because I love you.
    > > > Sorry, I don't swing that way.

    > > You like men?

    > No Paul, I don't. I like women. Which a troll-boy like you isn't.


    Good point.

    > > > > No, I think the most vocal and abusive time I did was, though.
    > > > liar

    > > Nope.

    > Yep.


    Nope.

    > Or should I be saying Duck season?


    I don't think we're there yet.

    > > > really!

    > > Not really.

    > Yes, really!


    No.

    > > > Read in context.

    > > The context wasn't helpful.

    > Yes it was. the following sentence (part of the context) was an
    > amplification on the idea which, had you applied some simple math
    > skills, would have told you that the poster was NOT talking about 40
    > extra when he said 52 extra.


    The following sentence, in the other reading, implied a number of
    titles getting the weekly treatment. I've said this before.

    > Apparently you don't, which is why I said if you did, it would have
    > been something you would have to have learned. Since you obviously
    > didn't learn it, your claims to a degree appear ficticious. You want me
    > to believe you have a degree, start showing some comprehension and
    > understanding of context.


    I do.

    > > > you'd have to have learned in order to get one.
    > > > It's the lack of evidence that you have learned those things (based
    > > > solely on the posts you've made) that lead me to the conclusion that
    > > > your degree is ficticious.

    > > Your conclusion is false. That's hardly unsual.

    > You are wrong, as usual.


    I have a degree. Therefore, you're wrong. Therefore your conclusion
    is false.

    > > > Why do you think it worries me? I'm not the one demanding acceptance
    > > > from others.

    > > Then who is?

    > you are the one demanding acceptance by stalking me across the net and
    > making up lies about me.


    Me?

    ===
    = DUG.
    ===
    Dummy, Apr 3, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Consultant

    OT XNews post test

    Consultant, Jul 16, 2004, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    28
    Views:
    914
    TechGeekPro
    Jul 19, 2004
  2. kpg
    Replies:
    30
    Views:
    1,007
  3. Rosco

    Xnews

    Rosco, Sep 4, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    803
    Boomer
    Sep 4, 2003
  4. berksposter

    Xnews uninstalling

    berksposter, Sep 27, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    2,302
    Boomer
    Sep 27, 2003
  5. Daniel

    XNews not deleting posts

    Daniel, Nov 21, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    713
    tango
    Nov 28, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page