What do you do?

"Ewan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

So far from believing that everyone is out to get me, I take the fact that
no
one is saying anything about your dishonest editing as evidence that they
actually agree with my view of it.

If they agreed with yours, they would, according to past precedent, defend
a
valued group member and pile in to explain why you were right and I was
wrong.

Go on, post some links to previous instances then. I'm guessing in those
cases the subject under discussion was rather more interesting than the one
you and Ian are currently on about.

The reason neither of you have got the group leaping in to support you is
that your discussion has become so immensely tedious that there's no point
in doing so.

Personally I reckon Ian wasn't being dishonest, and I've already said I
don't think TonyR was. If you'd worked with them, rather than just being
rude, you might have stood a chance of correcting any mistakes made, and
thus coming to an agreement, but since you started out with the heavy stuff,
there wasn't much hope of a sane discussion.

cheers,
clive

Ewan said:

I *assume* that he's shown himself to all as a cheat and a liar but
nobody wants to say anything because they have to live with him here.

Don't worry. It's nothing personal, just Ian's modus vivendi, stay her long
enough and you will get used to it.

I think it's a pity, as amongst the snippy dross that takes threads into
uncharted territory, there is some very good stuff.

pk

On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 18:52:12 -0000, "Clive George" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Ewan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

So far from believing that everyone is out to get me, I take the fact that
no
one is saying anything about your dishonest editing as evidence that they
actually agree with my view of it.

If they agreed with yours, they would, according to past precedent, defend
a
valued group member and pile in to explain why you were right and I was
wrong.

Go on, post some links to previous instances then. I'm guessing in those
cases the subject under discussion was rather more interesting than the one
you and Ian are currently on about.

The reason neither of you have got the group leaping in to support you is
that your discussion has become so immensely tedious that there's no point
in doing so.

But not so tedious that you've stopped reading it?

Quoted message said:

Personally I reckon Ian wasn't being dishonest, and I've already said I
don't think TonyR was. If you'd worked with them, rather than just being
rude, you might have stood a chance of correcting any mistakes made, and
thus coming to an agreement, but since you started out with the heavy stuff,
there wasn't much hope of a sane discussion.

Clive, I would rather have got this dealt with quickly and without fuss, but
it's very annoying when you see someone edit something in such a way as to make
what you've said look ridiculous.

I suppose I could have given IS the benefit of the doubt and not mentioned
dishonesty in the very first post I made, but really, look at what I quote below
and tell me that could have been an innocent mistake.

He could clearly see that my comment related to the whole of what TR said.

Why would an honest person remove part of the original, *leave my comment about
it intact* so that it appeared to relate to the snipped segment and then
contradict my comment.

And if it *was* an honest mistake why did he not just come clean, say so and the
matter would have ended dozens of posts and a couple of days ago?

Once again, for context:
What was said:

==================================================================================
TR But over 40 pedestrians a year killed on the pavement and a further 80
TR on pedestrian crossings which is more or less the same as the number of
TR cyclists killed on the whole road system.

EJ There are a hell of a lot more pedestrians than cyclists.

EJ Coming up with a statistic such as the one you just did is nothing more than
EJ attempting a smoke and mirrors trick.

EJ The above should not be taken to indicate that I agree or disagree that
EJ cycling is more dangerous than walking. The statistics simply aren't
EJ available.
===================================================================================

How you quoted and replied.
==================================================================================
TR But over 40 pedestrians a year killed on the pavement

EJ Coming up with a statistic such as the one you just did is nothing more than
EJ attempting a smoke and mirrors trick.

IS I don't think it is. It's a specific (and accurate) refutation of the
IS assertion "the pedestrian on the pavement is safe from the hazard"
IS (of motor vehicles). Isn't it?
==================================================================================

"Ewan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 18:52:12 -0000, "Clive George"
<[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Ewan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

So far from believing that everyone is out to get me, I take the fact
that
no
one is saying anything about your dishonest editing as evidence that
they
actually agree with my view of it.

If they agreed with yours, they would, according to past precedent,
defend
a
valued group member and pile in to explain why you were right and I was
wrong.

Go on, post some links to previous instances then. I'm guessing in those
cases the subject under discussion was rather more interesting than the
one
you and Ian are currently on about.

The reason neither of you have got the group leaping in to support you is
that your discussion has become so immensely tedious that there's no point
in doing so.

But not so tedious that you've stopped reading it?

It takes me hardly any time to skim and see if there's anything interesting.
And I've got a lot more stamina for this sort of thing than a lot of people
(but rather less than you/Ian).

I'm afraid the rest of your post isn't interesting, so I've snipped it and
not replied. There was a brief interlude which was slightly, which was the
bit about the group dynamics quoted above, but the rest is merely a return
to the same old stuff.

cheers,
clive

Ewan said:

On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 22:24:56 +0000, Don Whybrow <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

So, anyone that posts against you is by default one of "them".

No, just someone who is so shallow and petty that they will ignore dishonest
quoting and make fatuous comments about my counting when it would be plain to
anyone with the slightest modicum of intelligence that it was whether *other*
people realised they needed to count that was the problem.

Nice of you to be concerned about how other people manage to read posts
on Usenet. I don't know how we have managed all these years by simply
counting.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Until you start behaving like an adult around here your opinions count
for nothing in my book.

Do you really think I care what small minded numptie like you thinks?

So small minded that my only contribution to a discussion is to complain
about the use of different units of measurement when a conversion factor
is clearly explained?

Do you really think I care what a ignoramus like you thinks?

Quoted message said:

Do try and get over yourself.

Do try and educate yourself.

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

"This seems like a case where we need to shoot the messenger."
(Charlie Kaufman on Cypherpunks list)

Ewan said:

The point is that most people have the courtesy to quote so that the first piece
of text to which they respond is from the poster identified at the top of the
post.

No, do go and educate yourself on Usenet usage before trying to teach
others how it should be done.

Quoted message said:

Only the people directly involved will realise that the post was made by a dim
wit who can't follow the normal procedure, and hence that there is any need to
count '>'s.

See above.

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

"I fought the Dharma, and the Dharma won." (Allen Ginsberg)

Ewan said:

Ian Smith said:

Ewan said:

On 07 Feb 2007 14:58:29 GMT, Ian Smith <[email hidden]> wrote:

>Watch it Ewan, you're deliberately mis-attributing again. You quite
>clearly said that teh first poster named is expected to have said the
>first thing quoted. I did not say "Note also, BTW,..."

I believe I mentioned that jtaylor says it's not important, so
don't you go worrying your little head about it.

I'll take that

And use it as an excuse to for the umpteenth time, evade the real issue:

Dishonesty in quoting, from Ewan. No, can't be.

BTW Mr James, you could do worse than heed the advice below.

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

If you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop
diggin'.

On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 19:50:46 -0000, "Clive George" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I'm afraid the rest of your post isn't interesting, so I've snipped it and
not replied. There was a brief interlude which was slightly, which was the
bit about the group dynamics quoted above, but the rest is merely a return
to the same old stuff.

Sure it's old stuff but have you not noticed that not a single person has
actually addressed it - not one?

It's the issue that started this whole sorry mess and yet no one will attempt to
either justify or castigate the quoting in question in a straight forward,
unemotional manner - why is that?

Once again, for context:
What was said:

==================================================================================
TR But over 40 pedestrians a year killed on the pavement and a further 80
TR on pedestrian crossings which is more or less the same as the number of
TR cyclists killed on the whole road system.

EJ There are a hell of a lot more pedestrians than cyclists.

EJ Coming up with a statistic such as the one you just did is nothing more than
EJ attempting a smoke and mirrors trick.

EJ The above should not be taken to indicate that I agree or disagree that
EJ cycling is more dangerous than walking. The statistics simply aren't
EJ available.
===================================================================================

How you quoted and replied.
==================================================================================
TR But over 40 pedestrians a year killed on the pavement

EJ Coming up with a statistic such as the one you just did is nothing more than
EJ attempting a smoke and mirrors trick.

IS I don't think it is. It's a specific (and accurate) refutation of the
IS assertion "the pedestrian on the pavement is safe from the hazard"
IS (of motor vehicles). Isn't it?
==================================================================================

"Ewan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 19:50:46 -0000, "Clive George"
<[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I'm afraid the rest of your post isn't interesting, so I've snipped it and
not replied. There was a brief interlude which was slightly, which was the
bit about the group dynamics quoted above, but the rest is merely a return
to the same old stuff.

Sure it's old stuff but have you not noticed that not a single person has
actually addressed it - not one?

Several people did when this spat started, but you just said they were all
part of a nasty clique or something (CBA to go and actually look this up
though).

Quoted message said:

It's the issue that started this whole sorry mess and yet no one will
attempt to
either justify or castigate the quoting in question in a straight forward,
unemotional manner - why is that?

I've told you twice now : here it is for the third and final time. It's
because it's not interesting enough to warrant an answer. Nobody cares. Get
over it.

<snip cut and paste which I've seen far too many times already>

Repeatedly posting the same thing doesn't increase the likelyhood of you
getting an answer. In fact, it's more likely to achieve the opposite. It's a
mark of intelligence that one learns from things which don't work - the fact
that nobody's answering your questions indicates you either need to try
another approach, or give up.

clive

David Damerell said:

Quoting Tony Raven <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Roger wrote on 05/02/2007 16:05 +0100:

Quoted message said:

you did mess with the quoting and now you're busted.

Funny isn't it how Ewan turns up having only ever posted in urc and only
in the last 48hrs and then you turn up having never posted anywhere
before to defend him. Are you related?

That struck me. Both "Ewan" and "Roger" post via news.individual.net; both
of them have defective punctuation and spelling. Of course, I am sure it
is pure coincidence...

the german sever is popular as a text only, does a fair bit of filtering
well worth the cheap fee. Roger uses text ish speach and thunderbird.
Ewan uses fort i'd say not unless he can really be assed which i'd say
not.

roger

Buck said:

Tony Raven said:

p.k. wrote on 07/02/2007 08:09 +0100:

Quoted message said:

I and most of the group of people I cycle with, as an example, cycle
many miles off road and on quiet roads. (3 regular outings a week:
60miles total. Weekends on Chilterns in a day, C2C, W2W, to Brighton
next weekend) but most of us studiously avoid cycling in London proper
or out of town on the A3 because of the dangers from motor traffic.

Eh? London has 12% of the UK population and a higher level of cycling
than the UK average but only 6% of the UK cyclist deaths in the last
figures. The congestion charging zone which is just about to double in
size has made it even more pleasant to cycle. So where did you get
this view of the dangers?

It is perception, which was mentioned earlier in this thread,
I cycle in London traffic a lot and find it fine, but people I speak to
cite the densely packed traffic etc.. as to dangerous to cycle in.

having moved into the kingston area, the traffic is a lot slower and
used to bikes where i come from the roads are much faster, and less used
to bikes, it would be unexpected rather than a normal experance.

roger

Quoting Ewan <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I presume that if he were right and I was wrong the entire group would have
piled in to defend him rather than the tiny bunch on minor posters who, like
himself, ignore the original dishonest editing and witter on about trivia.

Amazing. This is a bit like "the lurkers support me in email" only without
the email, isn't it? "Everyone who has bothered to post thinks I'm an
idiot; therefore there must be a vast groundswell of silent support."

*plonk* Bored now.
--
OPTIONS=name:Kirsty,menustyle:C,female,lit_corridor,standout,time,showexp,hilit
e_pet,catname:Akane,dogname:Ryoga,fruit:okonomiyaki,pickup_types:"!$?=/,scores:
5 top/2 around,color,boulder:0,autoquiver,autodig,disclose:yiyayvygyc,pickup_bu
rden:burdened,!cmdassist,msg_window:reversed,!sparkle,horsename:Rumiko,showrace

In article said:

Quoting Ewan <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I presume that if he were right and I was wrong the entire group would have
piled in to defend him rather than the tiny bunch on minor posters who, like
himself, ignore the original dishonest editing and witter on about trivia.

Amazing. This is a bit like "the lurkers support me in email" only without
the email, isn't it? "Everyone who has bothered to post thinks I'm an
idiot; therefore there must be a vast groundswell of silent support."
*plonk* Bored now.

Staggering. I was bored too, but on the faint chance he'll see sense:
Ewan, you presume wrongly. I didn't bother posting because it was
obvious you were an idiot without anyone else joining in. I very much
doubt you'll find anyone who agrees with you at all (ignoring posters
we've never seen before with suspiciously similar style).