Re: David W


"RuPEDski" <datacipher@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:VU8Mg.515880$Mn5.403193@xxxxxxxxxxx

"David W" <no@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:QH5Mg.12168$b6.148628@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"RuPEDski" <datacipher@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:NI4Mg.517724$iF6.228370@xxxxxxxxxxx
"Jeanne D" <jeannedecarolis@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

Try, "Could you clarify?". Thank You.

LOL. Come on Jeanne, even you should acknowledge that is nitpicking at
best!
Further, from my perspective, this was the FIFTH time I had asked,from
my
perspective, he had in fact replied 3 times without clarifying(I was
unaware
due to server errors, that he replied a 4th time). Why would I say for a
fifth time "could you clarify"? In fact my initial inquiry was "What did
he
say that was the "faint praise"?"

You already knew the answer, though, which is why I asked, "Do you really
need to ask?" If I say in my first post that I laughed when Collins put
Agassi in the top fifteen players of all time, and then, in answer to the
question, "Why did you laugh?" I reply that it was because Collins damned
Agassi with faint praise, there isn't a lot of room for possibilities as
to
what specifically the faint praise was, and I find it hard to believe
that
you didn't know, even if you didn't agree with it. So, four times,
including
once in a new thread,
you asked a question that _you already knew the answer to_.

Yes, you asked and I explained that I didn't know and when you appeared
not to answer I was left with the hypothesis that lone statement was what
you had an issue with. However, I initially discounted it and thought
there was more as I didn't think anyone would really disagree with that
assesment, I think you can see by those follow ups that most don't. I
thought there must have been more. I have been completely civil to you and
did not argue with you in any way(not that there is anything wrong with
arguing). Why are you now continuing to argue by claiming I did know?
Bizarre. I'm not interested in arguing about it.

A much more interesting and relevant question would be where you actually
rank Agassi. You said in the post I did not receive that you put him in the
top 10?


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: David W
    ... Try, "Could you clarify?". ... Agassi with faint praise, there isn't a lot of room for possibilities as ... you in any way(not that there is anything wrong with arguing). ... now continuing to argue by claiming I did know? ...
    (rec.sport.tennis)
  • Re: Sarbanes-Oxley again
    ... outside auditors rushing in here to clarify anything? ... They obviously realise their time is better spent finding a solution, ... than arguing that the problem exists. ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • Re: new mcse 2000
    ... Jones" prattled ceaslessly in ... > Are you arguing or agreeing? ... Please clarify so we can continue ... If we continue on in this vein, ...
    (microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcse)
  • Re: [PATCH 1/10] cxgb3 - main header files
    ... Let's clarify - do you oppose doing copy_from_user from a fixed ... address passed in during setup? ... So far its been you and I arguing over this issue. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: new mcse 2000
    ... Jones" wrote in message ... > Are you arguing or agreeing? ... Please clarify so we can continue ... If we continue on in this vein, ...
    (microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcse)