RedFury, Xploder: shame on you

is it time to sing “the circle is unbroken”?

It isn’t likely to be “Kumbaya.”

usually,however, Bryan evoked the OP w/the word ‘shameful’.

Could you expand upon this? I’m not being snarky, I just don’t get it. Probably has far more to do with my density than your clarity. :slight_smile:

Prove it.

The words are clear (even the one you misused), but once again your prefered tactic is simply to submit a charge without providing evidence. (though I admit being curious as to how you propose to determine the meaning of a linguistic structure without parsing it. You may have stumbled upon a breakthrough that will propel the AI community to new heights.)

It should be a simple enough task, really. Demonstrate the flaws in my parsing of your sentence.

Of course, if you are unable to make such a demonstration you may always respond (again) with amusing anecdotes and newly defined terms. After all, your behavior might as well be consistent consistent, since your arguments are not.

For myself, I always find it amusing when posters whine about someone responding directly to the specific statements that they post, as if the words used were somehow irrelevant to the argument being made. Or as if the fault for bad writing belongs to the reader.

See above. :rolleyes:

Once again, you were not paying attention. One specific elemnt at a time has already been shown to be more than you can respond to adequately. If you ever master that skill, then we can move on to such simple demonstrations as [ul][li]interpreting a conditional[]recognizing an admission of behavior[]how to identify a fallacy of ambiguity[]the meaning of the word “admit”[]how to recognize a herring[/ul][/li]You can choose, really. No need to limit yourself to the above list. Just focus upon a single claim and try to support it with textual evidence, instead of simply repeating the claim three times and calling it “proved”. It might help, though, if you can manage to keep your terms consistent.

I assumed the “shameful” was reference to OP, hence full circle from start to (hopefull) end=full circle.

oh well.

:: pats hand soothingly ::

That’s all right, dear. You did your best. Here, have a nice cuppa and a biscuit, you’ll feel better. I’ll just go shut the door while those rowdies are passing by.

:wink:

thought for the day: threads end by:

  1. lack of interest

  2. mod closure,

  3. Praise be- some one simply stops responding.

Why, wring, are you perpetuating an irony?

(If it was because of the name thing, I promise that I will pronounce your silent “w” from now on.)

no- there comes a time when nothing productive will occur. that time, IMHO occurred some time ago. YMMV

Productivity is such a subjective concept when applied to a conversation (real or virtual). What product results, for instance, in posting to a thread in order to announce that you nothing productive will occur from posting to the thread?

Just wonderin’ is all.

(It’s kind of like ringing someone up to tell them you aren’t interested in talking to them, n’est ce pas?)

well, yeah.

of course, in my case, I’m again attempting to suggest the “stop responding” option to folks ** continuing** to flog the petrified glue remains of the dead horse.

Hey, some folks get a kick out of that activity.

Yeah – kind of goes to the heart of “voluntary participation”, doesn’t it? I’m not trying to be confrontational, and I certainly don’t fault your characterization of the activity, but I’ve never really understood the reason behind telling other people to stop “talking” about something that you can only “hear” if you make a specific effort to do so.

Like I said, just wonderin’ is all.

when one sees some one, especially some one that is respected, seeming to be so caught up in minutia one may attempt intervention.

I’m reminded of Micheal Douglas in War of the Roses gleefully saying “I’ve got more square footage”

Prove it?

I didn’t submit some mathematical thesis that ended with “Spiritus = Jackass, QED.” I supplied examples of condescension and nitpicking as support for my opinion that you are a jackass, and I take this latest post of yours as further reinforcement of that opinion.

I chuckle and hesitate to point this out but the fact you felt compelled to minutely parse my sentence in order to “prove” something is the act of a jackass in and of itself. Besides, even if your parsing produced a result that was perfectly accurate to the spirit of the original (it wasn’t), all you would have done is substitute eggs with eggs, accomplishing nothing.

You are, of course, free to disagree.

Hey wring, you know I love ya and yer mustard rules, but maybe you should take your own advice and stop responding. :stuck_out_tongue: