Re: Xing Yi or Hsing I (tangent from 1" punch conversation)

On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 11:22:03 -0700, hal wrote:

> On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 17:34:35 GMT, Rabid Weasel
> <lawson@NO21219SPAM+dayton.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 08:36:39 -0700, hal wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 13:41:44 GMT, Rabid Weasel
>>> <lawson@NO21219SPAM+dayton.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 15:08:03 -0700, hal wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 21:59:18 GMT, Rabid Weasel
>>>>> <lawson@NO5687SPAM+dayton.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 14:39:09 -0700, hal wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 21:26:05 GMT, Rabid Weasel
>>>>>>> <lawson@NO5687SPAM+dayton.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 12:38:34 -0700, hal wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I can see how you keep attacking explanations you don't understand.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>You mean like the way I "attacked" you in that spinning back-kick thread?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>hahahah
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> well you clearly weren't able to present a stronger argument than "til
>>>>>>>>> not!"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Planning on ignoring your mistake here and hoping it'll just "go away" huh?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Good plan.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Um, sorry, what?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes, I know.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What mistake?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I've given you enough hints. Heck I've practically bludgeoned you with
>>>>>>it. But you're going to continue to ignore it for as long as possible.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, really, what the *** are you babbling about now?
>>>>
>>>><sigh> Since you're plainly too dense to see it after practically being
>>>>smacked in the face with it multiple times, I'll be blunt. You accused me
>>>>of "attacking" you in the thread on spinning back-kicks (along with
>>>>"everyone else"). I never participated in that thread. At all. I didn't
>>>>post. Yet you're perfectly happy to completely ignore that and accuse me
>>>>of "attacking" you there anyhow. Why? Because you have a grudge against
>>>>me and you *want* it to be true.
>>>
>>>
>>> Um, do you forget that the word "you" can be used as a plural to refer
>>> to a group of people?
>>
>>Um, do you forget that "you" were specifically replying to *me*?
>>
>>Of course not. What's really happening is that you made an error and, as
>>usual, are now looking for ways to make it appear that you didn't.
>>
>
> I have frequently used you to refer to your little pack of junk yard
> dogs when you gang up on some fresh meat.

Yeah, keep claiming that hal. Maybe *someone* will believe you. Well,
no one *here*, but maybe someone, somewhere.

(IH)
.