10 replies to this topic

[Mike Reed]

Continued from previous thread.

Pahoran, on 26 April 2012 - 06:14 PM, said:

Thank you for admitting that you know perfectly well that he did not mean what you attributed to him;

Admitting?  LOL!  Plain english, Pahoran.  Let me help you: "Now... this may not be what he meant, but this is what he said."

Quote

meaning that your previous interpretation, to wit, "But according to BCspace's remark, it wouldn't matter to him," was not true.

Try again.

Quote

Because he never said "it wouldn't matter to him."

Now we are moving into an area more advanced than basic reading comprehension.  We are now entering into reading comprehension & logic. (drum-roll please...)  No pressure buddy. I realize that you are still struggling with the former, and so I understand why the latter would be extra difficult for you.  Don't fret.  I will help you again.

-------

Premise (as taken from BCspace's remark): x will not stop until condition y is met.
Question: but do we know if z happened?
Answer: If the premise is given, then z (by itself) has no bearing upon it. (ie. it "does not matter")

--------

My answer given above MUST follow... that is, unless of course z=y or z includes y.  

Does record removal equal placing a name on the do-not-contact list?

Is record removal included in the act of placing a name on the do-not-contact list?

No and No.  Of course not.

Edited by Mike Reed, 26 April 2012 - 07:25 PM.

[Pahoran]

Exactly what I said.  Uber-pharisaical parsing.

Do you really have to have the last word on every subject?  Then have at it.

And then, grow up, Mikey-boy.

Regards,
Pahoran

[Mike Reed]

Pahoran, on 26 April 2012 - 07:25 PM, said:

Exactly what I said.  Uber-pharisaical parsing.

Do you really have to have the last word on every subject?  Then have at it.

And then, grow up, Mikey-boy.

Regards,
Pahoran

You are the one who had the bone to pick, taking issue with me asking a simple question, all the while accusing me of nefariously misreading things into what was actually said.  But again... I represented his remarks accurately. He may have misstated.  But no.  I didn't misread.  You did.

And yes.  I will take.  Thanks.

You were wrong... again.

Now back to Pahoran's regularly scheduled program, dreaming the impossible dream, heroically slaying windmills... giving the last word, calling for a draw.

Edited by Mike Reed, 26 April 2012 - 07:42 PM.

[Pahoran]

Mike Reed, on 26 April 2012 - 07:28 PM, said:

You are the one who had the bone to pick, taking issue with me asking a simple question,

Point of order.  You said:

Quote

I don't know. But according to BCspace's remark, it wouldn't matter to him.

As you perfectly well know, that is what I took issue with.  As you perfectly well know, that was not a question.  As you perfectly well know, you have deliberately misrepresented the discussion.

The thread was closed.  Get over it and move on.

Mike Reed, on 26 April 2012 - 07:28 PM, said:

all the while accusing me of purposefully reading things into what was said.  But again... I represented his remarks perfectly.

Yes, your remarks above show how perfectly you represent what others write.

Mike Reed, on 26 April 2012 - 07:28 PM, said:

And yes.  I will take.  Thanks.

You were wrong... again.

Oh, I think we both know that's not the case.  If you were satisfied that you were right, why did you need to relitigate a closed thread?
Yes, I know I said I would let you have the last word.  But that was before you deliberately misrepresented the discussion.

Regards,
Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Mike Reed, on 26 April 2012 - 07:28 PM, said:

Now back to Pahoran's regularly scheduled program, dreaming the impossible dream, heroically slaying windmills... giving the last word, calling for a draw.

Now back to Reed's regularly scheduled program, reciting his silly "windmill" cliche, knowingly misrepresenting his opponent's position, claiming victory when there's none to be had.

See the very entertaining skit starring John Cleese as Mike Reed.

Regards,
Pahoran

[Mike Reed]

Last word, eh?  Now your memory is failing you.

Pahoran, on 26 April 2012 - 07:37 PM, said:

As you perfectly well know, that is what I took issue with.  

Indeed I do.

Quote

As you perfectly well know, that was not a question.  As you perfectly well know, you have deliberately misrepresented the discussion.

Huh?  Care to explain, or are you satisfied with blathering about unsubstantiated claims?

Quote

The thread was closed.  Get over it and move on.

And you gave me the last word.  So give it to me and shut it.

Quote

Yes, your remarks above show how perfectly you represent what others write.

Indeed they do, if anyone has the stamina to read and follow the past thread.

Quote

Oh, I think we both know that's not the case.  If you were satisfied that you were right, why did you need to relitigate a closed thread?

I know it is embarrasing.  But I opened a new thread because I wanted to post my response. And here it is, in all its glory.

Quote

Yes, I know I said I would let you have the last word.  But that was before you deliberately misrepresented the discussion.

Regards,
Pahoran

Of course, Quixote.  Care to substantiate the claim?

[Mike Reed]

Pahoran, on 26 April 2012 - 07:48 PM, said:

Now back to Reed's regularly scheduled program, reciting his silly "windmill" cliche, knowingly misrepresenting his opponent's position, claiming victory when there's none to be had.

See the very entertaining skit starring John Cleese as Mike Reed.

Regards,
Pahoran

LOL!  This is too good.  Please substantiate the claim that I am doing what you accuse me of.

Thanks in advance.

[Pahoran]

Mike Reed, on 26 April 2012 - 07:52 PM, said:

Last word, eh?  Now your memory is failing you.

Indeed I do.


Huh?  Care to explain, or are you satisfied with blathering about unsubstantiated claims?

Certainly I'll explain, since your "reading comprehension skills" appear not to be up to the task.

You previously wrote:

Mike Reed, on 26 April 2012 - 07:28 PM, said:

You are the one who had the bone to pick, taking issue with me asking a simple question,

But that was false.  What I actually took issue with, as you admitted above, was:

Quote

I don't know. But according to BCspace's remark, it wouldn't matter to him.

That's what I took issue with, wasn't it, Mr Reed?

But it wasn't a question, was it, Mr Reed?  Simple or otherwise?

It was an opinion, based upon a tendentious misreading of something BCSpace wrote.

And so, when you accused me of "taking issue with [you] asking a simple question," you weren't being strictly factual, were you, Mr Reed?

Mike Reed, on 26 April 2012 - 07:52 PM, said:

And you gave me the last word.  So give it to me and shut it.

Like I said: that was before you wilfully misrepresented the discussion.  It was made on a presumption of good faith on your part.

Yes, I know: more fool me.

Regards,
Pahoran

[Mike Reed]

Lets review:

BCSpace: Not until they remove their names from the record. Until then, we are stuck with trying to visit them on a regular basis. Not that I shirk from that duty........

Mike Reed: Then what are do-not-contact lists for?  <-------question

Why Me: Are they are on that list? If so, there should be no contact and hopefully they will have their names removed.

Mike Reed: I don't know. But according to BCspace's remark, it wouldn't matter to him.


Pahoran then babbled:

Quote

That's not actually what he said. I assume that he simply didn't have DNC lists in mind, but that he would (of course) honour such a request.

This is the second time in two days where I have seen you read something into someone's post that simply was not there. In both cases, the effect of the misreading was to make the target look bad, and the targets were posters with whom you are on less than friendly terms. Might some kind of pattern be emerging here?

Regards,
Pahoran

Pahoran accused me of misrepresenting BCSpace.  This statement that Pahoran responded to was preceded by the question transcribed above.  There was no misrepresentation of BCSpace's remarks.  Not in the slightest.  Now Pahoran is grasping at straws, pointing out that he specifically responded to my statement (not question).  Ok... I'll give him that.  It was a statement, not a question.  I must have conflated the two.  Second thought... I must have "known perfectly well" and was just lieing.  Yeah.  That's it.

One point for you, Pahoran! Yay!  Your apologetic prowess is vindicated!

So back to your first accusations against me previously babbled.  How again did I misrepresent BCSpace?  This is where the controversy began, right?

Let me guess... since it is obvious that I am a liar now, you don't have to prove it.

Edited by Mike Reed, 26 April 2012 - 08:29 PM.

[sunstoned]

Mike,

Let it go.  Even when you get the best of Pahoran (which happens quite regularly) he will run and hide behind the moderators skirts, and whine to get thread shut down.

[Eldwynn]

Do you really have to have the last word on every subject? Then have at it.

CLASSIC.

Edited by Eldwynn, 26 April 2012 - 08:24 PM.