Text 41222, 139 rader
Skriven 2006-10-13 13:10:42 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
  Kommentar till text 41106 av FRANK SCHEIDT (1:123/140)
Ärende: bye
===========
11 Oct 06 07:51, FRANK SCHEIDT wrote to ROY WITT:

 FS> -=> Quoting Roy Witt to Bob Klahn <=-

 RW>>> 07 Oct 06 13:31, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Roy Witt:

 MvdV>>>> Hello Roy!

 MvdV>>>> On Friday October 06 2006 11:29, you wrote to BOB KLAHN:

 BK>>>>>>  I thought he was just pulling your leg. It seems clear to me
 BK>>>>>>  that's what he intended, but it is also clear he didn't
 BK>>>>>> actually
 BK>>>>>>  say it. So, it looks like he took the opportunity to jerk you
 BK>>>>>>  around.

 RW>>>>> Then it backfired on him.

 MvdV>>>> Admit it Twitt, you created a trap by making an issue out of an
 MvdV>>>> obvious typo

 RW>>> No, I made an issue that you refused to admit your
 RW>>> statement was wrong, typo or not. You made your own trap, I
 RW>>> just tripped it for you.

 MvdV>>>> and then walked into your self set trap.

 RW>>> LOL! You're an idiot looking for any excuse so that you
 RW>>> don't have to accept or admit your own mistake.

 BK>>  No,

 RW>> Yes...

 BK>> I replied to his msg in recognition that it was an obvious typo.

 RW>> That's right, he made a typo! But that wasn't the the subject of his
 RW>> error on my part.

 RW>> He knew that he made a typo; I knew it and everyone else whose read
 RW>> it knows it. Apparently you're as ignorant of the subject as he is.
 RW>> His typo wasn't the point that I made. It was his poor choice of
 RW>> words, which only enhanced the typo that I pointed out.

 BK>> Your reply was three msgs down the chain, by which time it
 BK>>  should have been obvious to a rock that it was a typo.

 RW>> I know this is complicated for you but try this on for size: I'm not
 RW>> looking at it as a typo, I'm not as petty as you or the other
 RW>> Spelling Police in the echo.

 BK>> Yet you started your part with, "How did you conclude...". Now you
 BK>> don't "conclude" a typo.

 RW>> Correct, I didn't point out a typo there. He incorrectly stated that
 RW>> pi was equal to 3.1214 by using the word structure; instead of. Look
 RW>> up the definition of 'instead of' before you put more shoe leather
 RW>> in your mouth...

 BK>> So, when he said he did not conclude any such thing, he was exactly
 BK>> right.

 RW>> Wrong. His wording indicated that he did come to a conclusion. In
 RW>> using 'instead of', the sentence meant that he was sure that pi was
 RW>> 'not' equal to 3, but that it 'was' equal to 3.1214 (sic). Typo not
 RW>> withstanding, it was obvious to everyone but you and Vlist that he
 RW>> did make a conclusion in his statement.

 RW>> If you're having a hard time grasping the language structure,
 RW>> perhaps a refresher in English 101 will help you.

 BK>> When you hopped over that he led you around the block, and you
 BK>> deserved no better.

 RW>> That stubborn dutchman led me no where. He's incapable of that.

 RW>> When I asked; "How did you come to that conclusion?" - He immediatly
 RW>> knew that 3.1214 was in error, but wouldn't admit it by correcting
 RW>> that error. My question was a valid one, as I was pretty sure that
 RW>> pi was equal to 3.1415, but I wanted to know how he came up with
 RW>> that number.

 RW>> THEN, he admitted to the typo, which was irrelvant at that point in
 RW>> time, as he had already demonstrated his stubborness to admit a
 RW>> mistake when it's there for everyone to see. Simply answering with
 RW>> 'I made a typo' would have sufficed to drop the matter entirely.

 BK>>  You flame over typos,

 RW>> If you think pointing out something that isn't worded correctly, one
 RW>> that was misleading the reader to think Vlist is stating something
 RW>> in error, you have a problem of your won to worry about.

 BK>> you flame over spelling errors,

 RW>> You're full of shit. I'm not part of the Spelling Police in the
 RW>> echo. I don't take that accusation lightly and demand an apology for
 RW>> your error.
 BK>> you obviously have no interest in honest discussion or friendly
 BK>>  conversation.

 RW>> I prefer someone to be right when they say something. I also expect
 RW>> them to correct their errors when they're pointed out to them.

 RW>> And FYI, I don't flame over typos, nor do I point out typos or
 RW>> spelling errors. That's merely your imagination working overtime.
 RW>> What I expect is someone to know the grammar when they use it. Vlist
 RW>> would expect no less of a non-native Dutch speaker and WILL take
 RW>> every opportunity to point that out. I expect no less of his English
 RW>> grammar.

 BK>>  You are a jerk.

 RW>> You're too ignorant to know who is what...

 BK>>  Thank you.

 RW>> Fuck off.

 BK>>  Goodbye.

 RW>> No. Good riddance. Don't reply before apologizing.

 FS> Wow!  What an *outstanding* job of telling off both Mr. Vlist and
 FS> Mr. Klahn at the same time!  I don't know that I've done a better
 FS> job WRT Bob and *I* have been tying him up in knots for *years*!!
 FS> Of course I've had little experience with Mr. Vlist since he
 FS> fears "facing" me here ...

 FS> Congratulations!!

Thanks. Too bad Vlist is such a chicken ... he deserves to get his butt
kicked every time he opens his mouth.

               R\%/itt


--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
 * Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:397/22)