Legal position of h**m*ts

[[email protected]]

On 8 Jun 2006 20:28:13 -0700, "Jay Beattie" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>[email protected] wrote:
>> On 8 Jun 2006 17:58:20 -0700, "Jay Beattie" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >[email protected] wrote:
>> >> Sandy wrote:
>> >> > Tony Raven a écrit :
>> >> > > Sandy wrote:
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> So, when you (Raven) end up lauding "common sense" of a one-sided
>> >> > >> advocate, I take his words to be a cogent, yet slanted attempt to
>> >> > >> convince.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Check you quoting. I made no such comment.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > You are so cute, Raven. Your scissors are sooooo sharp. Of course you
>> >> > did, ninny.
>> >>
>> >> Dear Sandy,
>> >>
>> >> In court, wouldn't you provide a link to where "you (Raven) end up
>> >> lauding 'common sense'"?
>> >>
>> >> The rest of us can't tell if you're lazy, mistaken, or lying.
>> >
>> >That's how it looks on the Google news reader. The ">" placement makes
>> >it look like a post from Tony. Probably one of those odd Google
>> >artifacts.
>> >
>> >As for the article, its an advocacy piece, but hey, that's great. Go
>> >dog go. This is exactly why we have juries in the United States -- to
>> >resolve difficult scientific disputes. -- Jay Beattie.
>>
>> Dear Jay,
>>
>> I can't figure out what you're saying--you say "that's how it looks on
>> the Google news reader" without telling us where to see "it" (whatever
>> "it" may be).
>>
>> Can you provide a link to a post where:
>>
>> "So, when you (Raven) end up lauding "common sense" of a one-sided
>> advocate, I take his words to be a cogent, yet slanted attempt to
>> convince."
>>
>> I admit that Sandy's English and logic are as confused and tortured as
>> ever, but he seems to be claiming that Tony Raven is somewhere
>> "lauding 'common sense'"--particularly when Sandy dodges Tony's blunt
>> statement that he never lauded "common sense" with the usual insults
>> and unsupported assertions.
>>
>> Do you have a link to a post where Tony lauds common sense?
>> Do you think Sandy has one?
>>
>> Bewildered,
>
>You know, Carl, I really should be working -- and I feel that I am
>about at my bandwidth limit for helmet posts, but to answer your
>question, when I read the first post in this thread, it started with a
>quote from Tony, and the way the "<"s were arranged, I thought that the
>sentence about "common sense" was written by him. It looks different
>now (I would cut and paste, but I would lose this post). Really, I was
>not hallucinating. There are no large rabbits in my room. I'm telling
>you, Google does really strange things sometimes. I can see how Sandy
>could have gotten it wrong.
>
>BTW, Sandy's English is impressive, assuming he is French. Harken back
>to your freshmen writing classes. Most would not even know what
>"lauding" means. And you Carl . . . sometimes your posts read like "A
>Series of Unfortunate Events!" Are you Lemony Snickett? Come on, 'fess
>up. -- Jay Beattie.

Dear Jay,

Sandy says yes, Tony did say something.

Tony says no, he didn't say it.

Sandy makes a snotty reply and says, yes, Tony did say it, without
quote, explanation, or link.

People ask what's going on, what's Sandy talking about?

You've got time for one post that makes no sense.

Then you've got time for a 14-line follow-up about how you have time
for lots of irrelevant details, but not the time to give the link,
much less the quote, which you say doesn't look like what you thought
it did, anyway, and we end up no closer to whatever's going on.

You two guys are lawyers, right?

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[[email protected]]

On 8 Jun 2006 20:11:17 -0700, "dkahn400" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> On 8 Jun 2006 17:58:20 -0700, "Jay Beattie" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>
>> >That's how it looks on the Google news reader. The ">" placement makes
>> >it look like a post from Tony. Probably one of those odd Google
>> >artifacts.
>> >
>> >As for the article, its an advocacy piece, but hey, that's great. Go
>> >dog go. This is exactly why we have juries in the United States -- to
>> >resolve difficult scientific disputes. -- Jay Beattie.
>>
>> Dear Jay,
>>
>> I can't figure out what you're saying--you say "that's how it looks on
>> the Google news reader" without telling us where to see "it" (whatever
>> "it" may be).
>>
>> Can you provide a link to a post where:
>>
>> "So, when you (Raven) end up lauding "common sense" of a one-sided
>> advocate, I take his words to be a cogent, yet slanted attempt to
>> convince."
>>
>> I admit that Sandy's English and logic are as confused and tortured as
>> ever, but he seems to be claiming that Tony Raven is somewhere
>> "lauding 'common sense'"--particularly when Sandy dodges Tony's blunt
>> statement that he never lauded "common sense" with the usual insults
>> and unsupported assertions.
>>
>> Do you have a link to a post where Tony lauds common sense?
>
>I think Jay may be referring to this post by jtaylor
><http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.rec.cycling/msg/e1b8f6f74c3f8dea?dmode=source&hl=en>
>
>The "common sense" part is clearly attributed, correctly, to Pete
>White. I would have thought that Sandy, having insulted Tony so freely,
>would want to back that up by producing a reference to the post where
>Tony 'end(s) up lauding "common sense" of a one-sided advocate'.
>
>> Do you think Sandy has one?
>
>Undoubtedly. As a brilliant lawyer with superior reading and
>comprehension skills I'm sure he would never fall into the double trap
>of both relying on someone else's quotation of Tony's words rather then
>going to the source, and then misinterpreting the attribution.

Dear Dave,

You could be right.

Two lawyers have posted several times now without quote, link, or
coherent explanation.

We English majors are a dim lot, God knows, but we like to have quotes
and explanations.

(We do, however, appreciate gentle sarcasm.)

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[Jay Beattie]

[email protected] wrote:
> On 8 Jun 2006 20:28:13 -0700, "Jay Beattie" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >[email protected] wrote:
> >> On 8 Jun 2006 17:58:20 -0700, "Jay Beattie" <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >[email protected] wrote:
> >> >> Sandy wrote:
> >> >> > Tony Raven a écrit :
> >> >> > > Sandy wrote:
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> So, when you (Raven) end up lauding "common sense" of a one-sided
> >> >> > >> advocate, I take his words to be a cogent, yet slanted attemptto
> >> >> > >> convince.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Check you quoting. I made no such comment.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > You are so cute, Raven. Your scissors are sooooo sharp. Of course you
> >> >> > did, ninny.
> >> >>
> >> >> Dear Sandy,
> >> >>
> >> >> In court, wouldn't you provide a link to where "you (Raven) end up
> >> >> lauding 'common sense'"?
> >> >>
> >> >> The rest of us can't tell if you're lazy, mistaken, or lying.
> >> >
> >> >That's how it looks on the Google news reader. The ">" placement makes
> >> >it look like a post from Tony. Probably one of those odd Google
> >> >artifacts.
> >> >
> >> >As for the article, its an advocacy piece, but hey, that's great. Go
> >> >dog go. This is exactly why we have juries in the United States -- to
> >> >resolve difficult scientific disputes. -- Jay Beattie.
> >>
> >> Dear Jay,
> >>
> >> I can't figure out what you're saying--you say "that's how it looks on
> >> the Google news reader" without telling us where to see "it" (whatever
> >> "it" may be).
> >>
> >> Can you provide a link to a post where:
> >>
> >> "So, when you (Raven) end up lauding "common sense" of a one-sided
> >> advocate, I take his words to be a cogent, yet slanted attempt to
> >> convince."
> >>
> >> I admit that Sandy's English and logic are as confused and tortured as
> >> ever, but he seems to be claiming that Tony Raven is somewhere
> >> "lauding 'common sense'"--particularly when Sandy dodges Tony's blunt
> >> statement that he never lauded "common sense" with the usual insults
> >> and unsupported assertions.
> >>
> >> Do you have a link to a post where Tony lauds common sense?
> >> Do you think Sandy has one?
> >>
> >> Bewildered,
> >
> >You know, Carl, I really should be working -- and I feel that I am
> >about at my bandwidth limit for helmet posts, but to answer your
> >question, when I read the first post in this thread, it started with a
> >quote from Tony, and the way the "<"s were arranged, I thought that the
> >sentence about "common sense" was written by him. It looks different
> >now (I would cut and paste, but I would lose this post). Really, I was
> >not hallucinating. There are no large rabbits in my room. I'm telling
> >you, Google does really strange things sometimes. I can see how Sandy
> >could have gotten it wrong.
> >
> >BTW, Sandy's English is impressive, assuming he is French. Harken back
> >to your freshmen writing classes. Most would not even know what
> >"lauding" means. And you Carl . . . sometimes your posts read like "A
> >Series of Unfortunate Events!" Are you Lemony Snickett? Come on, 'fess
> >up. -- Jay Beattie.
>
> Dear Jay,
>
> Sandy says yes, Tony did say something.
>
> Tony says no, he didn't say it.
>
> Sandy makes a snotty reply and says, yes, Tony did say it, without
> quote, explanation, or link.
>
> People ask what's going on, what's Sandy talking about?
>
> You've got time for one post that makes no sense.
>
> Then you've got time for a 14-line follow-up about how you have time
> for lots of irrelevant details, but not the time to give the link,
> much less the quote, which you say doesn't look like what you thought
> it did, anyway, and we end up no closer to whatever's going on.
>
> You two guys are lawyers, right?

This is what I saw:

> Tony Raven wrote:
> > Came across a very interesting review by a Barrister and Law Lecturer at
> > the LSE on the status of cycle helmets in the UK Courts. An interesting
> > read especially some of his comments about Martlew and BsHIT.
> > http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/documents/fullbrook.pdf

> That took a while to read, but oddly worth it in the end! Common sense
> seems to be prevailing...

There was no head information. O.K.? More careful reading indicates
that Tony is not the speaker. Let's quit flogging this, and the lawyer
thing too. I don't hammer anyone for their day job, whatever it may be.
-- Jay Beattie.

P.S. I don't know how to give a link. This news reader is hobbled, and
I don't know how to use it anyway.

 

[[email protected]]

On 8 Jun 2006 22:15:43 -0700, "Jay Beattie" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>[email protected] wrote:
>> On 8 Jun 2006 20:28:13 -0700, "Jay Beattie" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >[email protected] wrote:
>> >> On 8 Jun 2006 17:58:20 -0700, "Jay Beattie" <[email protected]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >[email protected] wrote:
>> >> >> Sandy wrote:
>> >> >> > Tony Raven a écrit :
>> >> >> > > Sandy wrote:
>> >> >> > >>
>> >> >> > >> So, when you (Raven) end up lauding "common sense" of a one-sided
>> >> >> > >> advocate, I take his words to be a cogent, yet slanted attempt to
>> >> >> > >> convince.
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > Check you quoting. I made no such comment.
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > You are so cute, Raven. Your scissors are sooooo sharp. Of course you
>> >> >> > did, ninny.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Dear Sandy,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> In court, wouldn't you provide a link to where "you (Raven) end up
>> >> >> lauding 'common sense'"?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The rest of us can't tell if you're lazy, mistaken, or lying.
>> >> >
>> >> >That's how it looks on the Google news reader. The ">" placement makes
>> >> >it look like a post from Tony. Probably one of those odd Google
>> >> >artifacts.
>> >> >
>> >> >As for the article, its an advocacy piece, but hey, that's great. Go
>> >> >dog go. This is exactly why we have juries in the United States -- to
>> >> >resolve difficult scientific disputes. -- Jay Beattie.
>> >>
>> >> Dear Jay,
>> >>
>> >> I can't figure out what you're saying--you say "that's how it looks on
>> >> the Google news reader" without telling us where to see "it" (whatever
>> >> "it" may be).
>> >>
>> >> Can you provide a link to a post where:
>> >>
>> >> "So, when you (Raven) end up lauding "common sense" of a one-sided
>> >> advocate, I take his words to be a cogent, yet slanted attempt to
>> >> convince."
>> >>
>> >> I admit that Sandy's English and logic are as confused and tortured as
>> >> ever, but he seems to be claiming that Tony Raven is somewhere
>> >> "lauding 'common sense'"--particularly when Sandy dodges Tony's blunt
>> >> statement that he never lauded "common sense" with the usual insults
>> >> and unsupported assertions.
>> >>
>> >> Do you have a link to a post where Tony lauds common sense?
>> >> Do you think Sandy has one?
>> >>
>> >> Bewildered,
>> >
>> >You know, Carl, I really should be working -- and I feel that I am
>> >about at my bandwidth limit for helmet posts, but to answer your
>> >question, when I read the first post in this thread, it started with a
>> >quote from Tony, and the way the "<"s were arranged, I thought that the
>> >sentence about "common sense" was written by him. It looks different
>> >now (I would cut and paste, but I would lose this post). Really, I was
>> >not hallucinating. There are no large rabbits in my room. I'm telling
>> >you, Google does really strange things sometimes. I can see how Sandy
>> >could have gotten it wrong.
>> >
>> >BTW, Sandy's English is impressive, assuming he is French. Harken back
>> >to your freshmen writing classes. Most would not even know what
>> >"lauding" means. And you Carl . . . sometimes your posts read like "A
>> >Series of Unfortunate Events!" Are you Lemony Snickett? Come on, 'fess
>> >up. -- Jay Beattie.
>>
>> Dear Jay,
>>
>> Sandy says yes, Tony did say something.
>>
>> Tony says no, he didn't say it.
>>
>> Sandy makes a snotty reply and says, yes, Tony did say it, without
>> quote, explanation, or link.
>>
>> People ask what's going on, what's Sandy talking about?
>>
>> You've got time for one post that makes no sense.
>>
>> Then you've got time for a 14-line follow-up about how you have time
>> for lots of irrelevant details, but not the time to give the link,
>> much less the quote, which you say doesn't look like what you thought
>> it did, anyway, and we end up no closer to whatever's going on.
>>
>> You two guys are lawyers, right?
>
>This is what I saw:
>
>> Tony Raven wrote:
>> > Came across a very interesting review by a Barrister and Law Lecturer at
>> > the LSE on the status of cycle helmets in the UK Courts. An interesting
>> > read especially some of his comments about Martlew and BsHIT.
>> > http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/documents/fullbrook.pdf
>
>> That took a while to read, but oddly worth it in the end! Common sense
>> seems to be prevailing...
>
>There was no head information. O.K.? More careful reading indicates
>that Tony is not the speaker. Let's quit flogging this, and the lawyer
>thing too. I don't hammer anyone for their day job, whatever it may be.
>-- Jay Beattie.
>
>P.S. I don't know how to give a link. This news reader is hobbled, and
>I don't know how to use it anyway.

Dear Jay,

To find things on RBT, just go to Google Groups:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/

Stuff a few search words into the convenient, God-fearing right-hand
box (not the wicked upper search box that includes all groups, not
just RBT).

If you need to narrow things down, click on the "Advanced Groups
Search" and limit by group, author, time, heading, and so forth.

Once you find the elusive post, click on its "show options" and then
click on "individual message" to get a page and link to just that
post, like this:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/b96d6ef8e5d15c38

(Guess who?)

Cut-and-paste the link into your own post, and voila!

In windows, click on address once to highlight it in blue, ctrl-c to
copy to the clipboard, then ctrl-v to paste the copied text to
wherever you want it.

(I hear there are other computer operating systems, but that's about
95% of the world.)

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[David Martin]

Jay Beattie wrote:
> There are no large rabbits in my room.
As a lawyer I'm sure you are used to splitting hares..

;-)

...d

 

[Tony Raven]

Jay Beattie wrote:
>
> That's how it looks on the Google news reader. The ">" placement makes
> it look like a post from Tony. Probably one of those odd Google
> artifacts.
>

I must say, if that is the quality of your and Sandy's read in, I would
never want either of you as my lawyer.


--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[Sandy]

[email protected] a écrit :
> On 8 Jun 2006 22:15:43 -0700, "Jay Beattie" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> On 8 Jun 2006 20:28:13 -0700, "Jay Beattie" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8 Jun 2006 17:58:20 -0700, "Jay Beattie" <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sandy wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tony Raven a écrit :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sandy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, when you (Raven) end up lauding "common sense" of a one-sided
>>>>>>>>>> advocate, I take his words to be a cogent, yet slanted attempt to
>>>>>>>>>> convince.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Check you quoting. I made no such comment.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are so cute, Raven. Your scissors are sooooo sharp. Of course you
>>>>>>>> did, ninny.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear Sandy,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In court, wouldn't you provide a link to where "you (Raven) end up
>>>>>>> lauding 'common sense'"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The rest of us can't tell if you're lazy, mistaken, or lying.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's how it looks on the Google news reader. The ">" placement makes
>>>>>> it look like a post from Tony. Probably one of those odd Google
>>>>>> artifacts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for the article, its an advocacy piece, but hey, that's great. Go
>>>>>> dog go. This is exactly why we have juries in the United States -- to
>>>>>> resolve difficult scientific disputes. -- Jay Beattie.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Jay,
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't figure out what you're saying--you say "that's how it looks on
>>>>> the Google news reader" without telling us where to see "it" (whatever
>>>>> "it" may be).
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you provide a link to a post where:
>>>>>
>>>>> "So, when you (Raven) end up lauding "common sense" of a one-sided
>>>>> advocate, I take his words to be a cogent, yet slanted attempt to
>>>>> convince."
>>>>>
>>>>> I admit that Sandy's English and logic are as confused and tortured as
>>>>> ever, but he seems to be claiming that Tony Raven is somewhere
>>>>> "lauding 'common sense'"--particularly when Sandy dodges Tony's blunt
>>>>> statement that he never lauded "common sense" with the usual insults
>>>>> and unsupported assertions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you have a link to a post where Tony lauds common sense?
>>>>> Do you think Sandy has one?
>>>>>
>>>>> Bewildered,
>>>>>
>>>> You know, Carl, I really should be working -- and I feel that I am
>>>> about at my bandwidth limit for helmet posts, but to answer your
>>>> question, when I read the first post in this thread, it started with a
>>>> quote from Tony, and the way the "<"s were arranged, I thought that the
>>>> sentence about "common sense" was written by him. It looks different
>>>> now (I would cut and paste, but I would lose this post). Really, I was
>>>> not hallucinating. There are no large rabbits in my room. I'm telling
>>>> you, Google does really strange things sometimes. I can see how Sandy
>>>> could have gotten it wrong.
>>>>
>>>> BTW, Sandy's English is impressive, assuming he is French. Harken back
>>>> to your freshmen writing classes. Most would not even know what
>>>> "lauding" means. And you Carl . . . sometimes your posts read like "A
>>>> Series of Unfortunate Events!" Are you Lemony Snickett? Come on, 'fess
>>>> up. -- Jay Beattie.
>>>>
>>> Dear Jay,
>>>
>>> Sandy says yes, Tony did say something.
>>>
>>> Tony says no, he didn't say it.
>>>
>>> Sandy makes a snotty reply and says, yes, Tony did say it, without
>>> quote, explanation, or link.
>>>
>>> People ask what's going on, what's Sandy talking about?
>>>
>>> You've got time for one post that makes no sense.
>>>
>>> Then you've got time for a 14-line follow-up about how you have time
>>> for lots of irrelevant details, but not the time to give the link,
>>> much less the quote, which you say doesn't look like what you thought
>>> it did, anyway, and we end up no closer to whatever's going on.
>>>
>>> You two guys are lawyers, right?
>>>
>> This is what I saw:
>>
>>
>>> Tony Raven wrote:
>>>
>>>> Came across a very interesting review by a Barrister and Law Lecturer at
>>>> the LSE on the status of cycle helmets in the UK Courts. An interesting
>>>> read especially some of his comments about Martlew and BsHIT.
>>>> http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/documents/fullbrook.pdf
>>>>
>>> That took a while to read, but oddly worth it in the end! Common sense
>>> seems to be prevailing...
>>>
>> There was no head information. O.K.? More careful reading indicates
>> that Tony is not the speaker. Let's quit flogging this, and the lawyer
>> thing too. I don't hammer anyone for their day job, whatever it may be.
>> -- Jay Beattie.
>>
>> P.S. I don't know how to give a link. This news reader is hobbled, and
>> I don't know how to use it anyway.
>>
>
> Dear Jay,
>
> To find things on RBT, just go to Google Groups:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/
>
> Stuff a few search words into the convenient, God-fearing right-hand
> box (not the wicked upper search box that includes all groups, not
> just RBT).
>
> If you need to narrow things down, click on the "Advanced Groups
> Search" and limit by group, author, time, heading, and so forth.
>
> Once you find the elusive post, click on its "show options" and then
> click on "individual message" to get a page and link to just that
> post, like this:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/b96d6ef8e5d15c38
>
> (Guess who?)
>
> Cut-and-paste the link into your own post, and voila!
>
> In windows, click on address once to highlight it in blue, ctrl-c to
> copy to the clipboard, then ctrl-v to paste the copied text to
> wherever you want it.
>
> (I hear there are other computer operating systems, but that's about
> 95% of the world.)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel
>
You are such a *****, Fogel. You and a gang spend a night farting over
what may be a misattribution of words to Raven, rather than someone
else. It's morning, here, it's a nice day, so I'll make it all very
clear - whoever the words came from, the snipping of context in the post
was cowardly, much as your perpetuation of silliness here in an attempt
to get my goat.

So, Raven, addressing this to you : sorry for the misattribution.
However, addressing this to the mystery snipper : naughty, naughty.

And, Fogel, addressing this to you ;



That's right folks, no reason to answer emptiness.

Ciao !

 

[davek]

[email protected] wrote:
> You two guys are lawyers, right?

Have you not yet learnt that all lawyers are masters in obfuscation?
They go to special schools where they teach them the art. It's what they
are paid obscene amounts of money to do.

d.

 

[Tony Raven]

Sandy wrote:
>
> So, Raven, addressing this to you : sorry for the misattribution.
> However, addressing this to the mystery snipper : naughty, naughty.
>

Apology accepted Surname.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[Barnard Frederick]

Sandy says...

> You are such a *****, Fogel. You and a gang spend a night farting over
> what may be a misattribution of words to Raven, rather than someone
> else. It's morning, here, it's a nice day, so I'll make it all very
> clear - whoever the words came from, the snipping of context in the post
> was cowardly, much as your perpetuation of silliness here in an attempt
> to get my goat.
>
> So, Raven, addressing this to you : sorry for the misattribution.
> However, addressing this to the mystery snipper : naughty, naughty.
>
> And, Fogel, addressing this to you ;
>
>
>
> That's right folks, no reason to answer emptiness.

You must be referring to the emptiness between your ears. If a person
says a quote is not his, maybe you should at least consider that he
knows what he is talking about. Here's a clue, genius: quotes can be
edited and garbled beyond recognition. If you had any sense you would
know that. But if you had any sense it would be occasionally evident in
your posts. Sadly, it never is.

 

[Sandy]

davek a écrit :
> [email protected] wrote:
>> You two guys are lawyers, right?
>
> Have you not yet learnt that all lawyers are masters in obfuscation?
> They go to special schools where they teach them the art. It's what
> they are paid obscene amounts of money to do.
>
> d.
Envy is not a virtue.

 

[Sandy]

Barnard Frederick a écrit :
> Sandy says...
>
>
>> You are such a *****, Fogel. You and a gang spend a night farting over
>> what may be a misattribution of words to Raven, rather than someone
>> else. It's morning, here, it's a nice day, so I'll make it all very
>> clear - whoever the words came from, the snipping of context in the post
>> was cowardly, much as your perpetuation of silliness here in an attempt
>> to get my goat.
>>
>> So, Raven, addressing this to you : sorry for the misattribution.
>> However, addressing this to the mystery snipper : naughty, naughty.
>>
>> And, Fogel, addressing this to you ;
>>
>>
>>
>> That's right folks, no reason to answer emptiness.
>>
>
> You must be referring to the emptiness between your ears. If a person
> says a quote is not his, maybe you should at least consider that he
> knows what he is talking about. Here's a clue, genius: quotes can be
> edited and garbled beyond recognition. If you had any sense you would
> know that. But if you had any sense it would be occasionally evident in
> your posts. Sadly, it never is.
>
You and Fogel are enjoying butting into an overnight (for me) question
of mis-attribution, done by someone else, not me, the tenor of which I
have corrected to Raven.

Yet I don't see you responding to my posts, save here. Not to the ones
about use of data to make money (actuarial and underwriting principles),
nor to the simplest underlying tenet, namely, that population level
statistics are descriptive of collected historical data, not predictive
for a single future event). I do enjoy the wealth of content of your
post, however. And Fogel's.

BS (really, but not a signature)

 

[dkahn400]

Sandy wrote:

> I took it on blind trust that the excisions done by the post, to which I
> replied directly, were accurate. You have already received my
> correction, I trust. So, apologies offered, and the original comment
> directed to the person who wrote what I replied to. Happy to oblige.


Pete white replied to Tony's original post, quoting a portion of it and
adding a comment of his own. Jtaylor replied to pete white's post,
quoting it in full and likewise adding his own comment. It was this
post that you were replying to, so I'm still a little puzzled as to
what exactly is this "excision" you are still complaining of, and who
it was who made it.

--
Dave...

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>,
[email protected] ('[email protected]') wrote:

> Sandy says yes, Tony did say something.
>
> Tony says no, he didn't say it.
>
> Sandy makes a snotty reply and says, yes, Tony did say it, without
> quote, explanation, or link.
>
> People ask what's going on, what's Sandy talking about?
>
> You've got time for one post that makes no sense.
>
> Then you've got time for a 14-line follow-up about how you have time
> for lots of irrelevant details, but not the time to give the link,
> much less the quote, which you say doesn't look like what you thought
> it did, anyway, and we end up no closer to whatever's going on.
>
> You two guys are lawyers, right?

http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/07/magazines/fortune/rps_fortune/

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Drivers in the UK kill more people every single year than
;; Al Qaeda have ever killed worldwide in any single year.

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Sandy
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Barnard Frederick a écrit :
>> You must be referring to the emptiness between your ears. If a person
>> says a quote is not his, maybe you should at least consider that he
>> knows what he is talking about. Here's a clue, genius: quotes can be
>> edited and garbled beyond recognition. If you had any sense you would
>> know that. But if you had any sense it would be occasionally evident
>> in your posts. Sadly, it never is.
>>
> You and Fogel are enjoying butting into an overnight (for me) question
> of mis-attribution, done by someone else, not me, the tenor of which I
> have corrected to Raven.

Welcome to the real world, Sandy. This is a global system, and it has no
provision for private discussions. While you and I sleep, users in the
Americas and Australasia are awake.

We've all posted stupid things to Usenet from time to time; the only
dignified solution is to apologise politely and step back.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; I'd rather live in sybar-space

 

[Tony Raven]

Sandy wrote:
>
> I took it on blind trust that the excisions done by the post, to which I
> replied directly, were accurate.

Always dangerous to use blind trust over checking the original sources -
a bit like the helmet debate ;-)


--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[Tony Raven]

Simon Brooke wrote:
>
> We've all posted stupid things to Usenet from time to time; the only
> dignified solution is to apologise politely and step back.
>

Apology has been posted and accepted. Perhaps we can draw a close to
this side road.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[Sandy]

Tony Raven a écrit :
> Sandy wrote:
>>
>> I took it on blind trust that the excisions done by the post, to
>> which I replied directly, were accurate.
>
> Always dangerous to use blind trust over checking the original sources
> - a bit like the helmet debate ;-)
>
>
This is usenet. No client is paying me to check all cites. It's just
not worth it.
You don't get anything more from me on that.

 

[Tony Raven]

Sandy wrote:
> Tony Raven a écrit :
>> Sandy wrote:
>>>
>>> I took it on blind trust that the excisions done by the post, to
>>> which I replied directly, were accurate.
>>
>> Always dangerous to use blind trust over checking the original sources
>> - a bit like the helmet debate ;-)
>>
>>
> This is usenet. No client is paying me to check all cites. It's just
> not worth it.
> You don't get anything more from me on that.

You don't check the emoticons either I see ;-)

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[Sorni]

Sandy wrote:

> BS (really, but not a signature)

{blush}