Re: New requirement for merchants at Pennsic?

I might be wasting my time by replying, but I find it hard to allow Mr.
O'Connor's serious misunderstanding about the nature of flaming to pass
without comment, especially considering its relevance to his behavior.

Dennis M. O'Connor wrote:
<alexbclark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote ...
Dennis M. O'Connor wrote:
<alexbclark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote ...
Isn't it funny that you assume that my replies, sight unseen, belong in
alt.flame,

The whole point of the follow-ups header is anticipation
of the appropriate group the reply will belong in, stupid.

And by the time you used the one that I replied to, you could have
known (if you had cared) that it was *your* stuff that belonged in
alt.flame.

Not at all. The difference between your posts and mine,
which explains why yours belong in alt.flame and mine
don't, is simple: mine are intelligent, logical and right.
Yours are stupid, irrational and wrong.

Any statement, right or wrong, intelligent or stupid, rational or
illogical, becomes a flame when it is made in a thoroughly rude and
obnoxious way. That is why your part in this thread belongs in
alt.flame, even more than the fact that it has little content other
than unjustified opinion and irrelevant griping.

It is entirely possible to say trivial and pointless stuff in a polite
way, and it is just as possible to flame even when much of your content
is meaningful and reasonable. But you are being neither reasonable nor
polite.

BTW, why are you continuing to try to make your points by
slinging insults when you cannot give proof to support them?

Your posts themselves are the proof of the charge of
idiocy I lay upon you. For example, this gem of yours:

"For example", my ass. That is the *only* support for that insult, and
it is a totally inadequate support, as I will explain below.

"What I missed was what you didn't even say at all."

Presented as it was without the relevant context in post
<1138587133.058575.186200@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
it is complete gibberish. But worse than that, add in the
context, and it STILL makes no sense. Because you're an idiot.

If it makes no sense, that is only because I made the mistake of
assuming that *you* meant something when you said that my reading
skills were inadequate. In hindsight, I can now see all too clearly
that that statement, at that point, was nothing but an empty insult.
But I mistakenly assumed that, since you as much as admitted that I had
understood "quietire" correctly (see below), you could only have been
implying that I had misunderstood you. What you really meant was only
that you were venting your spleen, and I was mistaken to have
recognized the more reasonable implied meaning.

So if you want to say that my reading skills are inadequate you now
have your proof, but only with reference to what you wrote. And when
you mean to write empty insults, can you blame anyone for giving you
the benefit of the doubt and looking for meaningful content where you
didn't intend any?

To summarize: you wrote nonsense, I read it and analyzed it as if it
were intended as sense, I replied accordingly, and you didn't get it
because what I replied to was supposed to be nonsense. My mistake was
to overestimate your earnestness. I'll try not to make that mistake
again.

And then there's your original claim that I derided and
demolished, that "quietire" was making a "pointed
understatement". You didn't respond to that demolition
did you ? Probably because you know I had you, that YOU
had been an idiot. And you're just trying to distract people
from the fool you made of yourself with that one, I think.

You derided but completely failed to rebut that point. The truth is
that "quietire" had made a pointed understatement (to wit: "I guess
'war is good for business' ... or at least HER business."), and your
rude and insulting reply thereto took it strictly at face value and
totally failed to recognize the point of that understatement. Indeed,
even as you scoffed and grumbled about it, you yourself admitted that
this understatement seemed to be very pointed indeed. To quote you on
that: "'quietire' is baselessly slurring Cindy Cooper's good name" (and
I wish it was unnecessary to point out that "quietire" only *suggested*
this--note the use of qualifiers: "wonder", "guess"). No amount of your
flaming, in any newsgroup, will change these facts.

So how--and *why*--was I supposed to respond to that supposed point of
yours, when there was no coherent point for me to respond to?

You should learn to lose *gracefully*. It's a skill
someone like you will find many opportunities to use.

Take that advice. You won't regret it. I didn't need that advice; when
I really am losing then maybe you'll see how I take it.

--
Henry of Maldon/Alex Clark

"If I sent him word again 'it was not well cut,' he would send me word,
he cut it to please himself: this is called the Quip Modest."
- _As You Like It_, by Shakespeare

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Drill, Baby -- DRILL!
    ... Not voting for McCain/Palin is a good thing, and if the National Enquirer saves even one voter from making that mistake, decades of tacky drivel was worth it. ... (Quibble: I'm pretty sure Scrooge McDuck doesn't belong there) ...
    (rec.arts.comics.strips)
  • Re: why C++ STILL sucks for games
    ... I think the mistake you ... >>made was that they really could not argue with what you said. ... Well, yes, flaming is your thing, in effect. ... inconsiderate to those who took the trouble to respond. ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: No results found for my search!
    ... The search would be "amd ... For this id those several specifications are not in one row, ... but they belong to it. ...
    (comp.databases.ms-sqlserver)
  • Re: more on larouche
    ... I don't feel like I belong in Bob Dylan's world. ... I made a mistake. ... He's rich and famous and healthy, and I'm just a great big fat hot ...
    (rec.music.dylan)
  • Re: Lance fails retrospective drugs test.
    ... Robert wrote: ... because the samples were old and frozen that the science of the tests are not accepted as official. ... belong to. ... "I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't" Anon ...
    (uk.rec.cycling)