Mark Concedes!

In article <f9mi9q$slb$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
dg411@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Andre Lieven) wrote:

Using PuTTY on this one, so that you see it, Jill... :-)

Jill (asker_w@xxxxxxxxx) writes:
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 17:16:51 -0700, Andre Lieven
<andrelieven@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

Apparently you still cannot help making fictions up just like a
Feminist, when it comes to your own oxen being completely gored...

I was about to respond to Mark when I stopped to read your response
first, Andre. I'm glad I did as it was a very good response and quite
on point on every detail. Still...I made a few additions...

As well is your right to do so. Or, anyone's, where free speech
is the order of the day.

On Aug 11, 6:36 pm, PolishKnight <mar...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <66iob31uh9mn8ti65apnlq2fojlu74u...@xxxxxxx>,

Jill <aske...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 00:08:07 -0400, PolishKnight <mar...@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
[...]
Ok, I can't resist.

Hello, I know I'm sticking my neck in here,

Yes, you are but when has your awareness of doing so ever stopped you
before? <g>

I suppose it's like poking a beehive. :-) Do you want to go see a dead
body?

There are times it's fun to tease people. I think you and Andre can
handle it.

but this whole thing reminds
me of other semantic quibbling that erupts into personal grudges we've
seen between regulars usually on the same side of the aisle on this
forum.

Yes, you apparently are projecting your "quibblings" onto MsNothing's
current squabbling which may (or more likely) may not be appropriate
in this instance.

It takes two to tango (or squabble.) Jill, a person can't come out of
the bridal bed and say that only the other person lost their virginity...

Thank you for pointing out that you are no better than Parg. Petard...

What utter nonsense from Mark. My grandma used to always tell my
grandpa that he was so contrary he'd argue with a wall. That comment
also fits Mark to a T.

Indeed. Do you recall the Monty Python "argument" sketch ?

Mark doesn't seem to argue to get somewhere, he just argues for
the fun of it. Just like Borgerson.

On second thought, the comment about arguing with a wall...Groucho
Marx said that first. My grandma must have heard him say it on TV.

<Laughs> Indeed.

I've experienced it myself between Andre, Jill and myself somewhat
recently (as well as a few close calls with them seperately on some
issues before due to disagreements.)

Wow, Mark, that almost sounds like a whine. Not at all like you but
it is closer to what Ms.Nothing has been doing in this thread. Maybe
you and he do have something to commiserate about together.

And that almost sounds like a cheap putdown used by feminists and
leftists whose agenda in this country was FOUNDED by "whining!"

"I have a dream!!!" -- Groucho Marx

Uh no, that was said by Groucho Martin King Marx, Jr. Everybody knows
that.

Sure. <g>

Of all the complaining going on here I think it is fair and obvious to
point out that neither of you have been "quibbled" with to the degree
that Andre and I have gone up against one another in the past. Just
recall the famous "Canada is better than the US and vice versa"
argument if you need to refresh your memory. Not only was it a rather
bitter argument but it was *nearly* as stupid as your constantly
attributing quotes to Groucho Marx that the man never originated and
probably never even said in public.

You claimed to have provided online proof that another person originated
the quote in question but never provided it to me when I pressed for
details. Andre argued that he was entitled to a double standard (I am
obligated to provide proof for the most casual of claims, he isn't for
ones he argues with certainty.)

Well, thats a LIE, since I'm NOT the one continually and falsely ( Or,
idiotically, take your pick ) claiming that *one person* said pretty
much everything thats ever been quoted...

LOL.

Maybe its not as much fun for Mark, when its his oxen being gored...

Your own INability to back off of your overbroad and impossible
claims is why I demanded that you prove all your claims, due to
YOU having blown up your pre existing credibility.

Groucho told me to tell you that.

Yes, I heard Groucho say it on TV yesterday.

Thats OK, I had an Edison Cylinder recording of him telling George
Washington that.

It wasn't the issue in contention I minded or even you two sticking to
your guns. I can respect that. I'll "whine" and regret that you two
sometimes degenerate into the same tactics that I observe from the left
and feminists and the "religious radical right" that they like to look
down upon.

Oh, and you DON'T ? Puh-lease !

Mark's favorite tactic is to reason endlessly with trolls like SharonB
or freaks like Parg. Hmm...could that be because he knows he has some
sort of "intellectual" advantage in "taking on" cretins such as those
two? Mark seems to degenerate into whining, name-calling and
"quibbling" when he can't argue on the level of his peers. Hence all
of his Groucho cow***.

Indeed. Playing against the D team doesn't get you A team win points.

People are egotistical creatures. I can appreciate why just as the bees
will come out and swarm even under playful provocation. I don't view
the bees as stupid, but I do view humans as rather simple-minded
(despite education and wisdom) if they can't recognize when they're
being toyed with or getting upset over trivial, unimportant things.

Funny how that never seems to apply to YOUR statements...

...yeah, like being caught making incorrect quote attributions to
Groucho Marx. There's a prime example of an "unimportant" thing that
Mark simply cannot let go of. ;-)

Well, as Groucho once told Christopher Columbus, why worry about one
half, when you have the other three quarters ?

Still as foolish as Andre's and my "quibbles" in the past have been we
have managed to remain cordial, polite, and friendly to one another on
usenet. The same can be said of our usenet relationship to you on
usenet despite your childish manner of continually beating a dead
Groucho Marx horse further to death as your silly and inept way of
trying to assert your self-perceived "rightness" on the subject. :-)

It's charming that you remain friendly with me and don't beat a "dead
horse" while reasserting your claims of correctness.

<Laughs> Yes, Mark, even someone OTHER than you can be polite AND
accurate. Deal with it, and do so get over yourself.

Perhaps someday Mark will either be able to supply proof that Groucho
did originate that quote (and negative proof as in "no cite says he
didn't say it" is just a plainly ignorant agrument) OR Mark will
finally admit what everyone including Parg already knows...that Mark
is wrong.

But, as Groucho once told Ghengis Khan, love means never having to
say that you're sorry...

I'm reminded of the cute joke about the politician who says that he will
take a higher road and not make his opponent's criminal record a matter
of discussion and puts this philosophical sentiment up on large
billboards next to churches and schools. :-)

OK, so from now on, now that you have established that you make
up quotes and attribute them all to Groucho, in spite of facts that
show that he did NOT coin most of those quotes, then it remains
quite reasonable *and* consistant to no longer give any of your
claims of who said what any more credibility.

Precisely.

And, this is what Mark, in a full Borgerson, Just Doesn't Get.
Play fast and loose with facts, and others won't give you free
passes on your claims anymore. Its caled a... *consequence*.

Petard. You placed yourself there, I'm only shining a small light
onto it.

I was willing to let it go but Mark just keeps it up with attributing
every great quote ever made by others to Groucho Marx...probably just
to be "cute" So long as he keeps it up I don't mind pointing out what
a pinhead he looks like, not to mention how pig-headed he is behaving
in his obsessive need to always be right.

True, but as Groucho once told William The Conquerer, all you have
to do to be right is to kill everyone...

Perhaps your well intentioned lecture here is unnecessary as Andre's
and my example shows that one doesn't need to take "quibbles" to the
extreme that Ms.Nothing has insisted upon doing from the very first
time he was corrected.

He was hardly "corrected" if you feel a need to swarm around him.

<laughs> So, two people " correcting " one, proves that the one was
right ?

Andre, Mark is projecting again. To him none of this is about
MsNothing. It is all about Mark's big and obvious error WRT to
Groucho and how he feels we swarmed around him when he made that
glaringly obvious mistake. To date Mark hasn't said anything to
actually back up the content and/or merit of MsNothing's error and
complaint. That is telling.

Truth. Hes doing a Parg class thread hijacking for narcissistic
reasons. But, as Groucho once told Constantine of Rome, Its the
Christian thing to do... in the Collisseum.

Take the Blue Pill, man...

Quite simply, if you had ignored my post then you could have referred to
that later as proof-positive that I was the one beating a dead horse,
not you. You're covered with horse blood yourself at this point.

" <Projection> " Groucho.

LOL. I believe Groucho also originated the comical phrase "you're
covered with horse blood yourself." Wasn't that a line from "A Day at
the Races?"

Filmed with the generous help of the Celts of 4th Century Wales, who
learned to be generous from Groucho's wonderful teachings.

I don't take it personally.

Of course you do. See above.

The phrase "I don't take it personally" is in context to a personal
event and that the speaker views it in a larger context. I suppose it's
a paradoxical statement.

In fact, you two, I think it's rather cute.

I think you're cute, too, Mark. That's why I ignore your
pig-headedness and haven't ever plonked you.

Andre's plonked me at least once that I can recall and it didn't make a
difference. Once again, I don't take it personally in the context I
think he does this all the time with lots of people.

Yeah, and all of them manage to be proven wrong. So, you're in
plentiful company there, bucko.

I don't think Andre's ever plonked me...have you, Andre?

If I have, I don't recall it now.

About pig-headedness: that's generally a definition of someone who has
the nerve to disagree with you after you've stated that they're wrong.
The world's full of a lot of "pig headed" people.

Indeed, like ones who keep falsely attributing quotes, and who manage
to never apply their stated standards to... themselves.

Touche!

Didn't Groucho once tell Nero that ?

Ironically, despite having given Andre leeway and conceded points to him
he then jumped into the debate detecting weakness because I couldn't
find a definitive citation and claimed that I was pig-headed and
couldn't admit I was wrong.

Yeah, and I was right, too, which is what really bugs you.

Andre, note that nowhere in the above does Mark provide an example of
a time where HE admitted he was wrong about anything. "Conceding
points" is hardly the same thing.

Indeed. But, as Groucho once told Jesus, its better for later
readers to never see you cop to being wrong. That, of course,
led to the famous saying in the 1st Century Holy Land, " What
Would Groucho Do ? ".

I think that was rather dishonorable of him
after I had bent over backwards to be fair.

ROTFLMAO ! How Borgerson of you !

I don't know about the Borgerson comparison. I've had Borgie
killfiled for so long that he's nothing but a faint memory. However,
Mark IME does not bend over backwards to be fair to any of his peers.

No, but he likes to *appear* as if he does.

He does, however, bend over backwards to be "fair" to freaks and k00ks
like Parg and SharonB and possibly others of their ilk.

Kinda like this other Mark, from time to time, eh ?

But, remember the time that Groucho told Julius Caeser that kooks
are fun people, too...

And yes, I'll "whine" that
I'm a bit disappointed in him for that kind of behavior.

<shrug> I could say that I am " disappointed " by anyone who
is so petty and silly that they find a need to post all sorts of
quotes attributed to a person who didn't coin most of them.

Petty much, Mark ? Yes.

Before you
s*** at me for that admission, note that it comes from a feeling of
disappointment in him.

<Laughs> Yeah, because you were caught cowshitting some more.

You also argued that I'm pigheaded despite me clearly conceding points
to Parg and others and giving her the benefit of a doubt on several
occasations. I will allow my record on fairness and reasonable
openmindedness to speak for itself.

Once again, how Borgerson of you...

His record speaks for itself. That's the very problem he's having
with it--we keep pointing out his record to him. LOL.

Indeed. Groucho once told the Gauls that as long as they have a
good record, the movies will take care of themselves.

Ms.Nothing was not at
all "rather cute" in the way he responded to being corrected. At
least, wrong and stubborn as you are, Mark, you are a little creative
in your instance that you are never wrong.

I recall conceding points to Andre about the Canadian health care system
and the Japanese railway system, for starters. I didn't agree with his
whole point, overall, but I did concede some points openly.

Minor ones, at best. Jill's view of the matter is far more accurate
than your statement.

Again "conceding points" is not the same thing as saying "I made a
mistake; I was wrong."

Exactly. Hes trying to have it both way, " I conceeded points ", with
the implication that he never argued them, so that he never made a
mistake WRT them, and " I'm never wrong ".

Groucho taught the Carthaginians that.

I enjoy a good spirited
knife-fight and you two are at least more articulate than the common
trolls that engage in them here.

Andre and I are not trolls.

I was emphasizing that you're different than trolls. An emphasis of
difference is not a claim of similarity.

Mark, if you can't write English correctly then you most likely cannot
read it correctly much less understand the common error you made in
your sentence structure.

Indeed. But, you know how it is when Groucho tried to preach to
the Athenians *and* the Spartans...

Sheesh, I didn't even poke the beehive that time.

No, I poked the beehive and deliberately so just to get another
knee-jerk reaction out of you. I once again pointed out that you were
WRONG about something. Once again you've shown that you can't stand
it.

Yep.

Jill, if I'm a
pighead then you're a bit of a sour***.

Oh my! I'm absolutely crushed. :-)

Notice the little game there: " The only way that I can be wrong
is that you have to be at least as wrong ". Related to the old
wimminz'trick of " Well, you're right, but in the *wrong way* ".

Its time to say it: Mark S. DOES fight like a gurl.

You ought to know me long
enough here that I am not out to make a personal attack against you.

Calling me a "sour***" certainly smacks of you making a personal
attack against me. Make up your mind.

Indeed, more petards for Mark. Made by Mark, and produced and
directed by Mark. Based on a script from 100BC written by Groucho.

If I quibble, that's all it is.

Quibble all you like, but if you want to quibble with me use proper
sentence structure and attribute your quotations correctly or I will
point your errors out...when I feel like it.

Free Speech is pretty nifty, the way that it works for BOTH sides, eh ?

Nonetheless, Jill was correct in noting that you directly compared
herself and me with trolls. If YOU worded that badly, then the *only
person to view as responsible for what followed is YOU*...

Yes, he did pool us in with trolls but then he schmoozes with the
trolls so often that perhaps he's lost all perspective. Then again
maybe the answer is much more simple. Perhaps Mark just can't
structure a sentence properly any more than MsNothing can.

Well, time spent swilling with KOOKS will do that to you; Jayne's
a perfect example of what kind of Brain Rot that leads to.

But, Groucho wrote all about that in Athenian days.

I'm sure that is not what you *meant* in
the above statement, but as written, that is more or less what you
said.

I said what I said which is different than how you interpret it.

Say what you mean and mean what you say. That goes equally for the
written word. Other people aren't mind readers who can just divine
what you mean when you write poorly.

When writers try to blame their readers for not understanding their
points, all that shows is that there are Bad Writers trying to foist
off their failings onto others. But, the Spartans once heard Groucho
tell them that that was kewl, so...

Yeah, how " disappointing " that Jill just doesn't accept your claim
over her own views and judgements.

Your gaffe above is pretty much the same writing mistake Ms.Nothing
made which started him off on his tantrums.

You're free to bark up that tree if you like. Good huntin'.

I'm free to do whatever the hell I want to do, Mark. You just can't
stand being proven wrong about anything.

Yep. Freedom is just a bitch, ain't it, the way that it works equally
well for others...

Once again, how " disappointing " that Jill and I view that topic
somewhat differently from your view. It should not be necessary to say
it, but you have your head SO far up your ass in pure Borgerson style
that you cannot grasp that *no one else is ever obligated to see
things your way on anything*.

Andre, Mark is used to enjoying a lot of successful bantering with
Parg and SharonB. It is easy to win an argument with them because
they have no intellectual capacity to speak of. Arguing with his
peers is something Mark can't so easily bluff his way through. That
has to be frustrating to someone who's used to "winning" all of the
time.

Indeed and agreed. Hes gotten LAZY...

I have no problem with you having a different POV. I DO have a problem
with your frequent and very condescending expression of " If Jill and
Andre see anything differently from how I do, theres something wrong
with them.

But that's the way Mark sees things. If he cannot be wrong then we
must be wrong. Its a defense mechanism.

Its the same one that the KOOKS use...

Piss up a rope, Mark, and take a place with your true soulmates in
that view, Parg and Mange. Oh, and lets not forget ( Though, its good
to try ) the equally pissanty Borgerson.

Mark, you may not be much more articulate than George W. Bush is with
the English language but it is your content that makes reading your
posts worthwhile to me.

You ought to know that most of GWB's material is written for him by
professional writers.

Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you just that stupid, Mark?
I don't care who writes what for GWB, I'm certain none of them write
it in the fractured, stumbling manner he delivers it. He is NOT
articulate which was plainly my point above. And when you write, you
are not articulate and neither is MsNothing for that matter.

3-0 !

THAT was the original point of this thread. A point that I and many
other posters made to MsNothing and like you, he could not admit he'd
done anything wrong. Only you alone came to his defense and not on
the merits of the corrections delivered to MsNothing. You only
protested that he was being "swarmed" against like you and Groucho
were. This has been nothing but personal to you from the time you
poked your head into the thread.

A personal WHINE from Mark, yes. How... Parg of him.

It's been a common leftist tactic to attack the
language skills of conservative politicians going back to Eisenhower.
Once again, I'm rather disappointed to see you engaging in tactics
that are used by the smug left.

What utter cow***. This isn't a political discussion. It is a
discussion about how you make mistakes, hate having them corrected,
refuse to admit to them, and then take it all very personally when
simply saying "I was wrong about Groucho and that quote" would have
ended the whole embarassing thing for you.

Indeed. Has Mark gone over to the Feminists with " The personal
IS political " ? It appears so. But, as Groucho once told the
Sumerians, the left sucks.

Hey, even Shrub claimed that he " barely " speaks English today.

GWB is an awkward speaker, plain and simple.

And you and MsNothing are awkward writers, plain and simple.

Indeed.

And, one so dim as to have no grasp that there was more than one
religious/ethnic group in the land he was about to invade...

Comparing yourself and your Groucho
"quibbles" to what Ms.Nothing has been engaging in here is IMO selling
yourself short.

Tea for two, two for tea...

Flush.

That should be FLUSH!!! LOL.

I used a Low Flo flush, for low flo crap... <bg>

BTW didn't Groucho originate the phrase, "Tea for two, two for
tea..."?

Well, as all serious Grouchologists know, Groucho invented tea.
And, hot water, so that Mark could place himself in some.

I take my comment above back...Mark isn't selling himself short at
all.

He shrank while dealing with KOOKS, Parg and other mental midgets.

From what I can tell,

Indeed. Thats the key point of the matter, that YOU cannot tell,
and that you are so stuck up, in Borgerson fashion, as to have NO
idea that anyone could ever legitimately EVER have a view different
from yours.

Yes, but I'd use the word "conceit." Intellectual conceit in Mark's
case. To admit to an easily made error is unthinkable to him.

Indeed. So, as Groucho would say, Mark is admitting that Mark is
not human. But, since Groucho coes from Alpha Carinae 6, thats OK.

Your wife came from a place with a similar pathology, where they
put people who differed into asylums. Congratulations, Mark, YOU
ARE a Soviet Communist !

I can't even see what is so important in this
thread with Ms.Nothing anymore than why you and Andre get ugly over
points that aren't even soc.men material really.

Tough.

Tough? What is "soc.men material" and who gets to decide what it is
or is not? Mark?

Remind me again, which Mark moderated alt.usenet.moderated&polite
and which didn't ? <sarcasm mode off>

I think that integrity, backing up one's claims, being truthful,
providing facts and citations...certainly those are "points" that are
indeed soc.men material going way back. It seems that those things
aren't important to Mark. We are simply to take him at his word...to
nod and drool and not make waves over any incorrect or stupid things
he might say.

Thats inhuman, one could say...

Apparently MsNothing is now to be included under that umbrella.

Well, because its us, right ? :-)

I get the impression, from what I've read (I honestly was bored with
it), that this is a quibble over a semantic interpretation of what
someone wrote.

That's most likely because you can't read English any better than you
write it and even more likely because you are empathizing with
MsNothing who refuses to take corrections any better than you do.

Birds of a feather flock together. Groucho Marx

Didn't Groucho also invent birds once ?

So, based on your admitted *studied ignorance*, you wish to claim
a better grasp of the topic at hand then those who have been fully
engaged with it ?

Yep, you are Parg, Borgerson AND a Soviet Communist.

Vot praklyitii kretin.

Ms.Nothing put out bait and you and Andre ate it up like the roaches in
Northern Virginia...

You remind me of Rose Nyland in "The Golden Girls," Mark. She
constantly made connections to St. Olaf, Minnesota in every
conversation even when it was not appropriate to do so. We know
where you live already, Mark.

Well, people who lived in the first ever human city, Groucho-ville,
also had a hard time empathisisng to Ealsewhere... <bg>

As for MsNothing putting out the bait...Hahahahaha! He did no such
thing. He didn't have the foggiest idea that he was writing his post
ass backwards when he did it. Even after it was pointed out
repeatedly he couldn't seem to grog it. Much like what happened with
you and Groucho...

Yessirree.

<Projection> No proof offered ? Cow*** head-up-ass fact free claim
always fails.

I believe that if you're taking something to the level of a personal
grudge, especially over something that's a mere semantic disagreement
(tastes great, less filling!) then you really need to step back and
take
a few breaths. You're free to disagree, of course, but don't let it
stop you from looking at the big picture.

Yes, I'm free to disagree and I most certainly do. You opened the
door to my criticism by sticking your head into this thread and taking
it personally based on things you perceive as also happening to you.

Oh no, criticism! I NEVER get that here! :-)

Criticism from Borgie, Parg, Mange, SharonB, Jade.... It doesn't
count, Mark and you know it. You don't get much criticism from your
peers and you know that as well.

Yep.

Indeed, and in this case, you have *earned* every last bit of it.

Indeed. It's almost like he's begging for it...egging us on.

Hes desperate for it, from non KOOKS...

However, your and Ms.Nothing's experiences have little in common. The
only thing the two of you do have in common is you are equally
pig-headed and must always be right.

I have conceded to Andre several times as well as other people on the
opposite side of the aisle. If I can get you URLs to support this, will
you concede your personal claim against me that I'm pigheaded?

What about all YOUR claims above ? No proof offered ? Hypocrite.

There's that conceded thing again which is not the same thing as
saying "I was wrong."

Indeed. Note that his claims don't need icky proof, only Everyone
Else's do. Talk about *unearned* self esteem...

As Groucho Marx said, the Devil is in the details.

No, he did not. But you already know that. :-)

http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/24/messages/694.html

Phrase Finder Archives Web

Re: "The devil is in the details"
Posted by masakim on September 25, 2003

In Reply to: Re: "The devil is in the details" posted by ESC on
September 25, 2003

Does anyone know of origin of the phrase, "The devil is in the
details"?

DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS - The "Random House Dictionary of Popular
Proverbs and Sayings" by Gregory Y. Titelman (Random House, New York,
1996) shows this phrase as a variation of "God is in the details -
Whatever one does should be done thoroughly; details are important.
The saying is generally attributed to Gustave Flaubert (1821-80), who
is often quoted as saying, 'Le bon Dieu est dans le detail' (God is in
the details). Other attributions include Michelangelo, the architect
Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, and the art historian Aby Warburg. 'The
Devil is in the details' is a variant of the proverb, referring to a
catch hidden in the details. 'Governing is in the details''and 'The
truth, if it exists, is in the details' are recent variants. Listed as
an anonymous saying in the sixteenth edition of Barlett's 'Familiar
Quotations,' edited by Justin Kaplan."

Great. Now if you had provided me a citation on the original quote in
question, as you claimed, we wouldn't be so mean to each other. :-)

I did. That you didn't read it before Google removed it is your
problem.

Yep.

Since on such matters, Jill's record of proven accurate greatly
exceeds yours ( Jill 100%, Mark 0 % ), you are not in any equivalent
position from which to claim any such obligation towards yourself,
since you REFUSE to provide it to others.

I'll say it again: DO get way the *** over yourself.

And, of course, Groucho invented fucking. Thats about it.

Andre

I give up. I totally surrender to you two and admit I have been
pigheaded and wrong.

I herefore surrender any claim or even any casual remark that Groucho
Marx has said anything, whatsoever, anytime.

That said, Jill has said that she has provided proof of the original
claim that I was wrong. I asked her to provide the messageID or URL and
she generously told me that I should learn to use google. You, as an
honorable Canadian who believes in people backing up their claims, told
me that Jill didn't have to do what she said she had done due to a
double-standard putting all the burden on me as the original claimant.

Now that I've admitted I am wrong and cannot use google, I, as the loser
of this honorable debate, invite either of thee to provide the messageID
of Jill's GWB citation or literary reference that I asked for that time
ago so that you may show me precisely how I was wrong. You can
celebrate my wrongness through posting this URL showing Andre's Canadian
honor and Jill's 100% record of correctness. I'm sure you won't act
like a pigheaded person you claim I have been.

[bow],
PolishKnight
.