Re: Cheap PCs

"Mayor of R'lyeh" <mayor.of.rlyeh@xxxxxxxxx> stated in post
ecmhn1lhahpvm18uivoru90e45qbfohdja@xxxxxxx on 11/14/05 11:37 AM:

> On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 11:10:02 -0700, Steve Carroll <noone@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>
>> In article <eabhn1l91jgbme9dc5508jmo6uur51uu8l@xxxxxxx>,
>> Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.of.rlyeh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 15:54:51 -0700, Steve Carroll <noone@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>>>
>>>> In article <8kbcn1tk2sitm6vuipu200e7jqg43jprt7@xxxxxxx>,
>>>> Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.of.rlyeh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 07:31:46 -0700, Steve Carroll <noone@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <in6bn152o0hbc4a7sgldik1mhehn8rpg01@xxxxxxx>,
>>>>>> Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.of.rlyeh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (snip)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Carrol thinks Old English is still a viable language.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You said I wasn't married... I said I was via common law. The irony here
>>>>>> is that *you* would need Old English to make your case that I'm not;)
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually the truth is that I looked up Colorado law
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Actually you're full of ***, but what else is new?
>>>
>>> The fact that you're lying sure isn't.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Several people looked it up, myself included. Turns out, even though I
>>>> hadn't spent any time attempting to fulfill the requirements, I actually
>>>> had done so. Go read that thread again, you'll see.
>>>
>>> Actually it was your tendency to vacillate between declaring yourself
>>> married and declaring that you two were just shack up buddies that
>>> started things last time.
>>
>> What appeared to you to be vacillation on my part was made abundantly
>> clear to everyone else (with the exception of Snit - this was your big
>> clue;) via the context I made the statements in. Numerous posters
>> attempted to explain this to you and Snit... to no avail. Reality (you
>> know, that thing you are forced to avoid daily) will show that, within
>> the context of the discussion, at the least, I made the following
>> statements regarding my status the thread in question:
>>
>> 1 - "I have no problem with this at all... in fact, we have two kids and
>> we are not drawing amy benefits because we can afford not to... we are
>> not even legally married."
>>
>> 2 -"I don't have a legally recognized marriage and I'm able to purchase
>> insurance through my partner's place of employment."
>>
>> 3 -"As an unmarried partner of almost 20 years... in a relationship with
>> two kids, I don't feel my love for my partner is 'unofficial' in any way"
>>
>> 4 -"When I stated "unmarried" above... I meant unmarried in the sense
>> that my marriage has not been officially recognized."
>>
>> 5 -"When I mentioned my partner in a conversation that was talking about
>> state recognition of marriage, I was a good little language user and
>> stated I was "unmarried" from this perspective."
>>
>> 6 - "I VERY plainly stated that when it came to a reference regarding
>> nation-wide recognized *marriages* that I was unmarried. What part of
>> that confused you? Do you feel I have mislead someone with my use of the
>> word 'wife'?"
>>
>>
>> 7 - "If you can't understand the context in which I am using the word
>> [wife] there isn't much I can do to change your mind..."
>>
>> 8 - "I told a poster, in a conversation where we were talking about
>> nationally recognized marriages,(seen this thread's title lately?
>> Yeah... it's called context) that I was unmarried."
>>
>> 9 - "I didn't 'insist' any such thing... in fact, that I stated
>> I was unmarried (in any ceremonially, nationally recognized sense of
>> the word) lends credence to the idea that I would agree with you that,
>> outside of Colorado, I'm not considered married."
>>
>> 10 - "I stated that I was "unmarried" in a conversation where the
>> ***context*** was about nationally recognized marriages and the federal
>> benefits that go along with such a marriage."
>>
>> 11 - "Reality check: I didn't misrepresent my position while you tried
>> to claim that I did."
>>
>> 12 - "We weren't married in a church or by the state... that is a fact."
>>
>> 13 - "No, I said we were not married in a church or by the state."
>>
>> 14 - (Snit helped me with this one by bringing it to this thread) - "We
>> are not married by either church or state and do not get the
>> entitlements that our married neighbors get."
>>
>> It came from another thread. Here it is with the sentence that preceded
>> it:
>>
>> "I live with a women I refer to as my wife. We have two kids and have
>> been together for over 18 years. We are not married by either church or
>> state and do not get the entitlements that our married neighbors get."
>>
>> Besides the last one, all the others were written by me in that same
>> thread... where the subtopic was about rights of married couples and
>> where the only posters confused by what I wrote were you and Snit;)
>
> How kind of you to provide a bunch of quotes that prove my point.

Here is the funny thing: Steve thinks he is arguing against you as he
posts his support for your claim. I believe he really is so stupid as
to not understand how he just proved himself, again, to do exactly what
has been pointed out: say he is or is not married based on what is
convenient for him at the time.
>
>>
>> (snip a bunch of other realities Clyde can't deal with)
>
> IOW Steve is unable to counter my caims in the least.

Steve has sank to snip and run trolling. Have fun smacking him around
- once he is completely beaten he will do little more than this and not
even be worth the fun of reading his responses to you.

.