Subject:
|
Re: Does God have a name for God? (was: 20 Years of TLC's Frustration with "LEGOS")
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 4 Apr 2001 06:33:23 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
Q_HARLEQUIN_P@HOTMAIL.COMavoidspam
|
Viewed:
|
3017 times
|
| |
|
|
On Tue, 3 Apr 2001 13:16:53 GMT, Jennifer Clark
<jen@vulture.dmem.strath.ac.uk> wrote:
> Robert wrote:
>
> > Uh, I hate to point out your hypocristy...but on the one hand you say
> > it's easy to go back through the previous messages in the thread, and
> > yet you add spaces to the subject line which as you know breaks the
> > thread apart.
> While I am flattered by your attribution of devious directed obfuscation, unfortunately I must
> confess to not being as clever as all that in this matter - I've not knowingly changed the subject
> line in any of the messages I've replied to. That is not to say that they haven't been changed,
> merely that I was not aware of it happening. Interestingly enough the messages all appear on the
> one thread in my newsreader here, so perhaps it is using some other method for grouping messages
> (message ID?)
It's probably using the reference header to sort them instead of the
subject. Just out of curiosity, what news reader are you using?
Seems odd that it should randomly put spaces into the subject line.
o_O
> > Not only that but it's considered by most experienced
> > Usenet surfers as a form of cascade trolling. Just thought I'd let
> > you know. : )
> You accusing me of being a hypocrite, yet by then calling me a troll you open yourself up to such
> an accusation yourself by giving a canonical demonstration of "the pot calling the kettle black"
> :-)
Gee, PKB lames, have ye reached the bottom of the barrel already? : )
> Mind you, at least I learned a new phrase today... cascade trolling. Whatever next? :-)
You just never know. I am the foremost expert on trolling through, if
you really want to know how I seem so knowledgable. Basically I'm
hired or asked to attack invading troll groups. My most recent work
was in alt.fan.scarecrow, although it was pretty uneventful. I merely
had to show up and they all left and promised to leave the group out
of their x-posts.
> > Let me slow it down for you.
> >
> > ...from....which...I...was...quoting....earlier...
> Aha, finally all is clear. In order to participate in meaningful discussion, one must re-iterate
> every point one makes on a subject in every post one sends within the thread pertaining to that
> subject. Perhaps you should take note of my earlier point (not quoted here for brevity) pertaining
> to tedium.
Conscious dullness has little right to be prolix you know. To put
this whole thing into a simple perspective, I pointed out and quoted
one of your posts and said that in THAT post you seemed to be a bit
definitive in your wording. Rather than simply say, "Yeah, maybe I
was a little.", or to simply say "Perhaps, but I didn't mean to come
off that way, sue me for not being an English major", or something of
that nature you preceded to post quotes from an entirely different
message, I can only assume to confuse the situation. Or was there
some other reason why?
> > I'm not a God, I just understand human psychology, that and I can
> > calculate things. Anyone can do it, it's just a matter of shutting up
> > for 5 minutes, analyzing your opponent and then calculating expected
> > responses.
> I think you're taking this a bit too seriously Robert...
>
> Jennifer Clark
If you say so. `, )
Robert
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
137 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
