Re: All over for Federer

andrew.reys@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Mar 25, 9:40 am, "RuPEDski" <datacip...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This statement does not make any sense. At no point did I say 'reading" was
"useless as a tool" to advance intellectual development. I said that I

"I would say you need to read more carefully but I don't think it wil
help. "

In so many words, that is exactly what you said.

doubted reading carefully would help your comprehension. QED Thank you for
the demonstration. I'll also note that from a purely logical standpoint the
statement is also nonsense as we're dealing with a written medium,
comprehension is obviously contingent upon reading.

But reading is obviously not contingent upon comprehension, since you
seem to be able to have grasped the former quite well but the latter
not at all.

That you were talking about people who criticize a blog becayse they
NOW object to it is obvious. The point, which you've once again missed
by an astronomical unit, is that GroundAxe & Co. have been similarly
(if not more adolescently) criticizing pro-Fed blogs for years, hence
such blogs were clearly not "OK" in the sense you mean.

**************************
Let us even take your word and assume that Dr. has previously criticized
such posts. Now, we have the following situation

1.Fedfanboys spend a few years posting fanboy blogs and drool over them.
2.Dr. criticizes this.
3.Dr. posts a blog
4.Fedfanboys scream bloody murder
5.Rupedski LOL's and points out the hypocrisy of the fanboys.

6.Andrew Reyes says that #5 is untrue and silly BECAUSE Dr. has criticized
previous blogs posted by Fanboys

(lol.....um.....just a wee bit of logic lacking in #6)

I cannot simplify it any more than that.

That is unfortunate, because perhaps were you able to simplify it
further, you would be that much closer to actually understanding it.
To start, I'm not even going to point out your miscomprehsion of my
statements, since you're clearly confused about what you wrote to
begin with, which was an implication that it was "OK" for Fedfanboys
to post poorly written blogs in praise of Federer, in the sense that
no one would mind and/or criticize/ridicule/etc. This was made in a
context which included the past. I pointed out that your observation
was inaccurate, since such posts have been cross-posted and ridiculed
by GroundAxe for years. In otherwords, your contention that it was
"OK" was and remains clearly false. Rather than admit to this, you
have once again started trying to twist what you and others have said
in order to make your initial statements "right," even though in the
process you're contorting them beyond their initial parameters - which
would seem to defeat the purpose. Don't worry, though. We're all used
to it by now.

I will further
remind you that while you were talking about people criticizing a
negative a Fed blog NOW, your comment about Fedfanboys "posting very
poorly written blogs praising Fed" was made in the context of "have
been," and as such referenced past instances, as well. Perhaps next
time, you will consult a grammar manual prior to wielding your
ponderous intellect, and subsequently avoid another embarassing
outburst.

***********************************
Yikes.....indeed, the criticism is taking place "now"-within this and
current threads. The Fedfanboys' blog posting occured previously....the fact
that you're struggling to even understand this simple sequence is
astonishing and frightening. These events did not and are not all taking
place concurrently.....whooo........- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Indeed, as I suggested, a grammar manual would suit you well, since
you are clearly having difficulties nailing down the tenses and time
periods covered by your first post. As pointed out, I have no issue
with your analysis of the current criticism, and your projection of
juvenile anger onto others earlier is only to be expected. It is your
comment about posts by Fedfanboys being "OK," made in the context of
"have been" and "was" which happened to make no sense considering the
reality of the situation. Please, PLEASE take more time to thoroughly
read your posts in the future so that such confusions on your part do
not arise again. It would be most appreciated.

It's hard to read this through. Wonder how it's like to actually type that...
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: All over for Federer
    ... criticizing pro-Fed blogs for years, ... such blogs were clearly not "OK" in the sense you mean. ... such posts. ... which was an implication that it was "OK" for Fedfanboys ...
    (rec.sport.tennis)
  • Re: All over for Federer
    ... criticizing pro-Fed blogs for years, ... such blogs were clearly not "OK" in the sense you mean. ... such posts. ... which was an implication that it was "OK" for Fedfanboys ...
    (rec.sport.tennis)
  • Re: All over for Federer
    ... criticizing pro-Fed blogs for years, ... such blogs were clearly not "OK" in the sense you mean. ... such posts. ... which was an implication that it was "OK" for Fedfanboys ...
    (rec.sport.tennis)
  • Re: OT: Lets stop this "beating around the bush" bullshit.
    ... I guess that's a good sign, assuming most posts aren't just spreading urban legends. ... Newsgroups served their purpose of forming global communities of posters with a common interest, but now that function seems to be better served by blogs. ... _is_ the internet, so if something isn't on a website it doesn't get ... I guess live chat is good for cybersex role-playing, ...
    (rec.arts.theatre.musicals)
  • Re: New Avengers Annual 2 (was New Avengers 35 - the toybox syndrome)
    ... about Secret Invasion????? ... visible on forums that are more "creator-friendly" than Usenet. ... ignored, sometimes posts deleted, and sometimes banned. ... people hes criticizing because he becomes a hypocrite when he does ...
    (rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe)