UK and Europe · Public discussion

Re: Swans

mb · 2006-11-17T19:37:14+00:00

mb wrote: Can you be clearer? Who are these statements directed at? It was plain enough, I left all the attributions in and quoted text. You should understand that google groups isn't a good interface to usenet. It was not 'plain' to anyone except yourself. It confused several people, including me. You must be reading something else. I only replied to one person, I only left text in from that person and the attributes said who that person was. What you actually did was quote part of another message and made a comment that seemed to disagree, then quoted another part and appeared to endorse and agree with it - "Exactly, I'm glad someone came out to say it." No, I quoted only one post, by one person. There was no text in from anybody else. So what we have is that you strongly disagree and strongly agree with the preceding post. Oh dear, do I have to explain it? It was an attempt to point out the contradictory nature of the post by Michael Adams. What's more, you do both in a foul and unpleasant manner. On the evidence of this posting, you are at least as objectionable as teh post you were commenting on. I seem to have offended your delicate sensibilities, perhaps usenet isn't the place for you? Try a nice newsreader, like xananews. You try writing in coherent English. Not all the ills on newsgroups can be blamed on google - some are down to people who rant and rave but don't actually post what they mean, then blame everyone else for not being mind-readers. It was coherent and quite understandable. It's not rocket science, reading a reply to only one post. Maybe you should change your newsreader? Pan is quite nice. -- Mike Van Tuyl titanium Dura Ace 10 Fausto Coppi aluminium Ultegra 10 Raleigh Record Sprint mongrel

Started by mb · 17 November 2006 · Last activity 17 November 2006 · 5 posts · 381 views

← Back to UK and Europe

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section: UK and Europe
Published: 17 November 2006
Last activity: 17 November 2006
Original author: mb
Posts: 5
Discussion status: Public discussion
Total views: 381
Views / 30 days: 0
Topics: Fausto Coppi

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Original post
mb
Archived post

17 November 2006, 19:37 UTC #1

Ian Smith said:
mb said:
Quoted message said:
mb wrote:
Can you be clearer? Who are these statements directed at?
It was plain enough, I left all the attributions in and quoted text.
You should understand that google groups isn't a good interface to
usenet.
It was not 'plain' to anyone except yourself. It confused several
people, including me.
You must be reading something else. I only replied to one person, I only
left text in from that person and the attributes said who that person
was.
Quoted message said:

What you actually did was quote part of another message and made a
comment that seemed to disagree, then quoted another part and appeared
to endorse and agree with it - "Exactly, I'm glad someone came out to
say it."
No, I quoted only one post, by one person. There was no text in from
anybody else.
Quoted message said:

So what we have is that you strongly disagree and strongly agree with
the preceding post.
Oh dear, do I have to explain it? It was an attempt to point out the
contradictory nature of the post by Michael Adams.
Quoted message said:
What's more, you do both in a foul and unpleasant
manner. On the evidence of this posting, you are at least as
objectionable as teh post you were commenting on.
I seem to have offended your delicate sensibilities, perhaps usenet isn't
the place for you?
Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:
Try a nice newsreader, like xananews.
You try writing in coherent English. Not all the ills on newsgroups can
be blamed on google - some are down to people who rant and rave but
don't actually post what they mean, then blame everyone else for not
being mind-readers.
It was coherent and quite understandable. It's not rocket science, reading
a reply to only one post. Maybe you should change your newsreader? Pan is
quite nice.
--
Mike
Van Tuyl titanium Dura Ace 10
Fausto Coppi aluminium Ultegra 10
Raleigh Record Sprint mongrel

Report
Danny Colyer
Archived post

17 November 2006, 20:19 UTC #2

mb said:
It was coherent and quite understandable.
And George W Bush is a leading environmentalist.
Actually, it ranks among the least coherent posts I have seen in 10
years on usenet.
--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

Report
mb
Archived post

17 November 2006, 20:30 UTC #3

Danny Colyer said:
mb said:
It was coherent and quite understandable.
And George W Bush is a leading environmentalist.
No, I have to disagree with that. (Do you see what I've done there)?
Quoted message said:

Actually, it ranks among the least coherent posts I have seen in 10
years on usenet.
Hah! You can't fool me. Take a look at a few more posts around here.
--
Mike
Van Tuyl titanium Dura Ace 10
Fausto Coppi aluminium Ultegra 10

Report
Ian Smith
Archived post

17 November 2006, 20:49 UTC #4

mb said:
Ian Smith said:
It was not 'plain' to anyone except yourself. It confused several
people, including me.
You must be reading something else. I only replied to one person, I only
left text in from that person and the attributes said who that person
was.
Eh? I made no claim that you quoted or addressed more than one
person. What are you talking about?
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
What you actually did was quote part of another message and made a
comment that seemed to disagree, then quoted another part and appeared
to endorse and agree with it - "Exactly, I'm glad someone came out to
say it."
No, I quoted only one post, by one person. There was no text in from
anybody else.
I did not claim you quoted more than one post or more than one person.
I ask again, what are you talking about?
Of the one post you quoted, you strongly disagreed with that
person, and you strongly agreed with that person. That's the whole
point - your posting was incoherent. It was not coherent. You both
agreed and disagreed. You both supported and attacked. You made no
sense.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
You try writing in coherent English. Not all the ills on newsgroups can
be blamed on google - some are down to people who rant and rave but
don't actually post what they mean, then blame everyone else for not
being mind-readers.
It was coherent and quite understandable.
But, it seems, appeared coherent only to you, and understandable only
to you.
Have you not noticed that the only comment on your posting, which has
been made by several different people, is that it did not make sense?
Admittedly, it is possible that you alone on the face of the planet
know how to parse English, and everyone else is wrong, but I'm afraid
I'd have to doubt the plausibility of that as an explanation.
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Report
mb
Archived post

17 November 2006, 21:47 UTC #5

Ian Smith said:
mb said:
Ian Smith said:
It was not 'plain' to anyone except yourself. It confused several
people, including me.
You must be reading something else. I only replied to one person, I only
left text in from that person and the attributes said who that person
was.
Eh? I made no claim that you quoted or addressed more than one
person. What are you talking about?
Did I say you did? Now I know you have trouble reading. I was merely
pointing out how simple it was. You have difficulty grasping these
concepts.
Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
What you actually did was quote part of another message and made a
comment that seemed to disagree, then quoted another part and appeared
to endorse and agree with it - "Exactly, I'm glad someone came out to
say it."
No, I quoted only one post, by one person. There was no text in from
anybody else.
I did not claim you quoted more than one post or more than one person.
I ask again, what are you talking about?
Of the one post you quoted, you strongly disagreed with that
person, and you strongly agreed with that person. That's the whole
point - your posting was incoherent. It was not coherent. You both
agreed and disagreed. You both supported and attacked. You made no
sense.
I see you snipped the bit where I said it was an attempt to point out the
contradiction in the post. That obviously whooshed right over your head.
Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
You try writing in coherent English. Not all the ills on newsgroups
can be blamed on google - some are down to people who rant and rave
but don't actually post what they mean, then blame everyone else for
not being mind-readers.
It was coherent and quite understandable.
But, it seems, appeared coherent only to you, and understandable only to
you.
Have you not noticed that the only comment on your posting, which has
been made by several different people, is that it did not make sense?
Admittedly, it is possible that you alone on the face of the planet know
how to parse English, and everyone else is wrong, but I'm afraid I'd
have to doubt the plausibility of that as an explanation.
Several people don't make a whole planet. (2 people, or was it 3? One reply
wasn't addressed to me).
I'm a bit worried that you won't be able to follow this post.
--
Mike
Van Tuyl titanium Dura Ace 10
Fausto Coppi aluminium Ultegra 10
Raleigh Record Sprint mongrel

Report

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.

What we know about this thread

Continue through CyclingForums

Active in this thread