Re: TAN/ MEGA/ Lurkers & Posters

In rec.arts.tv.soaps.cbs on Mon, 13 Feb 2006 21:07:37 -0700 in Msg.#
<Xmnushal8y-172EBC.21073713022006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Xmnushal8y@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

Shirl:
So, because YOU read/discussed it, it must be true.

Donna B <shallotpeel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Not what I said, not my point of view, there is no causality at all, LOL,
between my knowledge of something's existence - and it existing. And, that
applies to all of us!!

So, now you're saying it may or may not exist or be accurate?

LOL!!! This has become hilarious. No, not what I said *at all*, not remotely
in the area of what I said. Whether I know about rain or not, whether I know
where someone else can learn about rain or not, is totally & completely
irrelevant to the existence of the rain! I have nothing to do with its
existence sheerly because of my awareness or lack thereof. And, by 'I' here,
I mean anyone, any of us, etc. This is whack. But, hey, maybe you're just
having what you consider to be fun.

Who said anything about impediment to conversation?

Me. I'm talking about having a conversation, in contrast to what you're
talking about.

Well, if you can't tell anyone where you got that number or what study
it was derived from, then people can choose to believe it's accurate or
that it's just a guess.

Absolutely!!!! And, I said that way on up the thread, right off. And, that
applies to just about anything that's not clearly opinion or preference
being expressed!

Again, just because DonnaB says it's accurate
and that there is no guessing involved isn't enough for all of us to
just buy it.

Obviously! And, again, something I've already acknowledged - as well as that
anyone who feels that way is welcome to ... think whatever they like ...
and/or find out about it on their own.

Why go over & over undisputed territory, especially things that I said
upfront in first volley of replying?!!!

The term "poster" applies to Usenet and other types of
online message boards and discussion groups, as does
the term "lurker".

Exactly my point!

Mine too.

Great! No idea what happened to your implication but apparently it's now
clear that you didn't mean to bring that up in the context you did. Okay.

HUH? what implication?

I already pasted this in, a direct quote from you, in an earlier reply. This
is a huge waste of time.

Obviously, some sites lend themselves to certain kinds of
data collection & some to others, but, when speaking in the
generalities we both have said we are, that is no impediment.

I haven't been speaking in generalities ... I asked a specific question
to which there has been no answer, only a bunch of gobbledegoop about
how there is no guesswork, but I can go look it up myself.

The generalities that we both agree on, the common area where there is
nothing challenged, as in posters & lurkers & how it applies all over, etc.,
etc. But, I'm pretty sure you know what I mean at this point & are just
enjoying twisting & turning things. It's the only thing that makes any sense
to me, at this point.

Since you seem to know so much about it, ...

If I had read what I said, about how I learned about it, I think it would be
clear that it is not that at all.

You should try that some time, reading what you said ... as the sentence
above ... makes zero sense.

Bwa HA HA HA HA, snort. Good one. Great selective editing again.

Oh for crissakes. Go look at my first post after Ravl commented on the
ratio you posted. I asked why and how. If you took that as a challenge,
insistence, or demand, that's your interpretation.

Interpretation? Well, it's not the word I would use, but, okay, trying to go
with your word, sure, interpretation is all over discussions like this. If
you meant what you've posted to be other than the way I've described it,
then, yes, I completely misinterpreted you. Of course, if you meant what you
have posted to be other than the way I've described it, I think you'd say
so, affirming it positively, ... or maybe that's just the way some of us
would do it - me, for example.

Why don't you quit playing semantics and just admit you don't know where
the 10:1 ratio came from or if it's connected to a specific study.

Why don't you stop repeating yourself & going in circles. I've already said
I have no intention of taking the time to re-research this & post it or
pointers to it here, at this time. If someone else wishes to, as always, and
of course, that is fine with me. I find it a very interesting topic.

This isn't a job. If I take on a project, as I often do here, to look things
up & post them, it is because I want to, out of both a desire to help out
another poster & for fun. That doesn't apply here. And, this is a
recreational forum.

If I edit something out, it's because it isn't something I'm responding
to, not to make it "appear" that it wasn't there. If that doesn't fit
your definition of dialogue, oh well.

If you have not meant that to be what the results were of some of your
editing, then you accidentally achieved that result, apparently. Same
difference to me, as it means someone, in this case me, often has to go back
& paste something that is missing that is needed, back in.

And if I posted a specific number that people were wondering about and I
KNEW the source or the study it came from, I'd just offer it rather than
saying "go look it up yourself." No one is here to do things exactly
they way YOU or I would. If you took my differing opinion as a
"challenge & confrontation", so be it ... sounds like you're not
offering a source because you took exception to the way I asked!

Yes, I did post & offer information that people were interested in. And, no,
of course, none of us has to emulate anyone else's style, although we can
all of us learn from each other, in general.

Yet, I am glad to find now that it is an item of curiosity to you.

Would I have gone into all this dialogue to find out if I wasn't
curious?

Oh, sure you might have. Absolutely. People have myriad potential reasons
for the things they do.

There is obviously a problem interpreting what you read.

LOL What's clear to me is that 8 times out of 10 if you say what you think
I'm saying, you're mischaracterizing my statements. Hey, if it were me, I'd
go by what I actually do & am saying, instead of trying to recharacterize
it, but, of course, YMMV, as always.

At any rate, you're going to see things the way you do, however that is, no
matter what I, or anyone else says. That's life. But, just as I have no
difficulty in reading comprehension, I would never think that you did
either. You just don't 'get' me.

--
Donna B 8^> shallotpeel <*> Yahoo Messenger: shallotpeel
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Debating Uncertaintity uncertainly...
    ... | saying that when a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to ... | peak-a-boo that they literally disappear from reality. ... You can't think a new skyscraper into existence, you have to build it, ... You are a computer that controls a crane, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Dawkins makes painfully clear what creationists have said for
    ... Saying that one is and one isn't requires a monumental amount of hubris. ... And this is essentially what Dawkins is saying in Chapter 2, "The God ... "An even if God's existence is never proved or disproved with certainty ... Yet you don't know what hte probability is for any case, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Dawkins makes painfully clear what creationists have said for
    ... Dawkins has his, I have mine. ... And the existence of a creator deity with infinite powers who no one has ever detected is many orders of magnitude less probable than Its nonexistence. ... And this is essentially what Dawkins is saying in Chapter 2, "The God Hypothesis" of his book. ... "There is no reason to regard God as immune from consideration along the spectrum of probabilities. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: An Analysis of the Resolution of the Michelson-Morley Experiment
    ... > But does require the existence of a cosmic pervading substance ... >> what you are saying. ... >> Said paradigms turn out predictions whch, wherever possible, have ... >> tested and have always, in the hands of competent physicists, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: An Analysis of the Resolution of the Michelson-Morley Experiment
    ... > But does require the existence of a cosmic pervading substance ... >> what you are saying. ... >> Said paradigms turn out predictions whch, wherever possible, have ... >> tested and have always, in the hands of competent physicists, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading