Re: Overheard on the scanner

Joe Ellis <synthfilker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
That's not how it works. I'm not going to type, "Oh, you disagree
with me? I must have been wrong, then. So sorry," even though it
would take very little time.

Ah... so now you're saying you _won't_ admit to being wrong.

I won't admit to being wrong unless I believe I was wrong.

I haven't yet replied to your message, partly because I reply in
reverse order and simply haven't gotten to it yet, and partly
because it would take a fair amount of work to debunk all your
claims.

Like... forever?

Unfortunately, many messages that I mark as needing replies, I never
reply to. As I said, I reply in reverse order. Have I replied to any
older than the one in question since you posted it? If I replied in
forward order, I would probably be replying to messages from around
1999 today.

Your whole "too busy to be bothered" nonsense is SO transparent,
when you're one of the most prolific posters here.

So you think I should skip replying to several messages by others,
rather than one message by you? Part of the reason I'm able to reply
to as many as I do is because I set aside or skip those that would
require hours of work. Especially when the requester is not at all
polite about it.

It's a no-win game. If I did spend all day to definitively prove you
were wrong about every claim, you'd simply post a dozen more claims,
then insult me if I refused to spend all tomorrow evening debunking
those.

Would anyone else prefer that I spend the weekend replying to Joe's
accusatory messages rather than other rasff messages?

All you need to do is reply to ONE... by admitting you were wrong
about the ISS being the "most efficient vehicle".

Why is that so important to you? It was a semi-joke. And even if
Voyager is more efficient in some sense, it's arguably not a vehicle,
in that it carries no people.

If more than one person says yes, I'll do so, even though it would
probably mean that several other messages in my stack will never
get replies.

Ah, playing to the audience... so when all else fails, you attempt
to "validate" your intransigence by simply appealing to the group
and requesting that you not have to defend yourself. Lame, lame,
lame...

I'll note that not one person has asked me to reply to you. Two have
urged me to killfile you.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: JSH: SF: New factoring method
    ... Tim Peters wrote: ... Yes, it was lame. ... >> decrease in replies of all kind. ... you're not fooling anyone as the originals are archived on Google. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Fifth Wheelers - What Do You Tow With?
    ... What issues have you had with the vehicle? ... Interesting, of the 10 or 12 replies so far, only two or three actually answered the original questions. ... The issues I've had are, obviously, numerous - for instance, it won't go uphill or against the wind. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: Best CDR burning software
    ... You won't get much help with replies like that... ... Don Burnette ... > can you speak english? ... > go back to your wormhole and dont bother posting lame replies ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Mileage with Small Trailer?
    ... There's such a huge difference of opinion on this, running the whole gamut of replies, that a person might be left in no better shape than when he started, having gone from total ignorance to complete confusion. ... but please let me know when and where you are stupid enough to tow a travel trailer with a S-10 Blazer. ... Our Bravada was a fantastic vehicle on snow, ice, dirt, and wet roads. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: OT What? No comments on Coulters comments to Deutsch?
    ... 10/12 7:02 on my reader. ... This is such a lame attempt for you to get some attention on a topic ... There was no replies for you to read! ...
    (alt.autos.toyota)