Subject:
|
Re: Can we help?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 2 Nov 2004 22:58:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3924 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.dear-lego, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.dear-lego, Richie Dulin wrote:
>
> > Sure is: Outrageous claim. Unrelated evidence.
>
> It would have been clearer to just say that instead of being clever.
Possibly. But by no means necessarily. In my view, sometimes the way a point is
made contributes to the understanding of the point being made.
> > I see now that the poster has clarified his statement. It is now just an
> > outrageous claim.
>
> So he has.
>
> > PS: I thought that sarcasm, mockery and truth (and even all degrees of subtlety)
> > had a place in lugnet discussions. Perhaps this is no longer the case?
>
> Sarcasm and mockery? Not really, no.
But your condescending reprimand to me contained both sarcasm and mockery,
right?
And I note that you snipped my comment on that from your reply - although I
concede that my comment on that may have used to much irony for you to
understand.
> > FUT .general.
>
> Your FUT cancelled (it's way off topic for .general) and FUT reset to
> admin.general
I defer to your greater expertise.
However, I note that your reprimand to me was probably off topic for .dear-lego
(where you posted it), unless it really *was* a request for clarification of my
post. I was merely redirecting to where I thought (erroneously, it seems) it was
best placed, as you had chosen not to do so.
Cheers
Richie Dulin
|
|
1 Message in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
