To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.admin.termsOpen lugnet.admin.terms in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Administrative / Terms of Use / 447
446  |  448
Subject: 
Re: What about the first?
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms
Followup-To: 
lugnet.admin.terms
Date: 
Fri, 28 May 2004 15:59:53 GMT
Viewed: 
108 times
  
Can anyone tell me exactly what this is achieving? Is there any sort of aim to these attacks on me? Is this “constructive” Don? Should I just ignore him? Is his behavior acceptable? Is he obsessed by me? Should I be flattered by the attention?

Scott A



  
  
  
   for assidious and malintentioned nitpickers to find.

If you are going to insult me,

are you an assiduous and malintentioned nitpicker? If not, I wasn’t talking to you Scott, apologies if you think I was, but therefore I wasn’t insulting you.

If you are, then, by your own admission, identifying you as such isn’t an insult, merely an identification.

  
   please at least check your spelling first; Don has to look these “big words” up in his pocket dictionary! ;-)

I use google, and you’re right, I did need to look up the first biggie. Unfortunately the top link from google didn’t help much:

definition of assidious

Or maybe that was sneaky debator’s trick for calling someone an insidious @$$ and passing it off as a typo?

Nope. merely a typo for assiduous:

From: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=assiduous (careful, it spawns popups that not all stoppers stop)

“2. unceasing, persistent”

Being called on that typo certainly proves part of my point, though. (watch for a post saying 8 out of 9 instead of 7 out of 8) By the way, this thread might prove interesting reading: http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=18612&t=i&v=a

Note how hard Dave E. tries to get Scott to stop wiggling, without positive result. Look how deep this thread gets: http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=18778 with no real outcome.

Really, Don, (and Dave K) (as this did start with your remarking about debate style, if I recall correctly) you’d be well served not to get into long back and forths with Scott. There’s no “there” there.



Message is in Reply To:
  Re: What about the first?
 
(...) are you an assiduous and malintentioned nitpicker? If not, I wasn't talking to you Scott, apologies if you think I was, but therefore I wasn't insulting you. If you are, then, by your own admission, identifying you as such isn't an insult, (...) (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

91 Messages in This Thread:



























Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR