Re: Drugged drivers.

iiiiDougiiii (doug@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

>> >> You really call "I was run over" a description?

>> > It is part of the description.

>> The first line... The setting of the scene...

> I see you have now dishonestly resorted to selectively deleting
> relevant text.

Just the irrelevant stuff I'm not replying to. It's called "snipping" -
you want to try it some time, like the vast majority of well-mannered
UseNet posters do. Oh, sorry - I forgot - it's rather difficult with
Google's crap posting client.

>> >> Now, what's the word? Ah, yes. "Hypocrite". Since you've obviously
>> >> been busy learning basic concepts, with your newfound
>> >> understanding of MessageIDs, have you also started to understand
>> >> that concept yet?

>> > Liar! Previously Google beta did not have a search facility.

>> A bad workman blames his tools.
>>
>> Everybody else has always managed to get Google Groups to search for
>> MessageIDs.

> Liar. The beta version did not have a search facility.

Yes, Duhg, it did. I used it quite happily. You just had to, IIRC, click
on "Advanced Search", then fill in the "MessageID" field. It's been
there since Google introduced the unutterably vile early versions of the
Beta of 2.0.

Why *do* you insist on using Google Groups? It's a searchable archive,
not an NNTP news client/server. You really would find UseNet much easier
to use if you used it properly, you know. There's plenty of free clients
and free servers out there. Just look at the headers of my posts if you
want a starting point - I find this server and client work very well,
and are both free.

>> Let me refresh your memory :-
>> <1109096269.656839.225180@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

> Relevance?

Read the post. It's you, completely not understanding MessageIDs. Read
around that post a bit to get some recollection of how badly you were
flailing.

> How is it not a description?

Simply, it doesn't describe what happened.

> Stop trying to nitpick your way out of this.

You really do have double standards, don't you?

>> I'll happily apologise if you prove me wrong.

> I have given a description and you have not apologised.

Because you haven't given a description of what happened. "I got run
over" is not a description of what happened.

"I fell over and hurt my ankle".
That's not a description of what happened. It doesn't give any
indication of what happened.

"I was utterly pissed, vaulted over a bench in a beer tent, landed badly
on the grass, went over, and badly strained the ligaments."
That is a description of what happened.

>> So you happily accept that that is a laughably thin "description",

> So you now admit it was a decription?

Quote marks, Duhgy, quote marks.

>> I'm not looking for a complete timeline, admissable in court
>> as evidence - just a rough outline of what happened. In the absence
>> of that, we can only assume that it was your own stupid fault that
>> you got run over, and you're too embarrassed to admit it.

> I have already given a rough outline on this newsgroup and it was
> accepted by another poster that such a traumatic event is bound to
> involve some loss of memory, particularly in a child, something you
> obviously do not have the slightest sympathy with.

If you bothered reading anything I post, you'd know that I do.

If you don't remember what happened, and can't give a description of
what happened, then just say so - and that's fine. However, you've
claimed that you can remember and have described what happened, I'm just
asking to be pointed to it.

If you don't know what happened, then you can't know who was to blame in
the accident. Yet you insist that you were completely blameless - which
would suggest that you know what happened - yet you aren't willing to
tell us, claiming you don't know, because you don't remember.

Which would imply that you've convinced yourself that you were
blameless, purely because you were the pedestrian and pedestrians are
*always* blameless. Which is, frankly, sheer unmitigated bollocks.

>> > You are obviously not a person who keeps their word and are
>> > therefore not to be trusted.

>> Are you talking to yourself again, Duhgie?

> I am quite obviously referring to you.

In that case - "Pot! Kettle!"
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The real culprit
    ... forced to use google groups, a possible solution is for OE users to ... move to a different client. ... suggestion, offering an alternative to fix an issue some people are ... it is as demonstarted in all of your posts above. ...
    (rec.sport.rugby.union)
  • Re: Safari 1.3 OS X 3.9 and Google Maps Update
    ... They are the reasons you don't install a client. ... The Mac you use is the aged "family" computer, ... > Yes, I realise that I do use Google groups on occasion, but that's usually ...
    (uk.comp.sys.mac)
  • Re: Transfer files using sockets, urgent!!
    ... some large files (from server ... to client. ... This is the first time I am posting on google groups, ... Don't be fooled by the poor google interface and make sure you follow expected quoting conventions when you reply. ...
    (comp.unix.programmer)
  • Re: Google Groups users tired of seeing china spam?
    ... NewsProxy is just a proxy server for your news client that lets you ... most clients can not filter on. ... be sure you get rid of all the google groups china spam. ...
    (rec.boats)
  • Re: Serious problem with search
    ... I guess I should have been a bit clearer about what search facility I ... At the time I wrote the original post, ... the MSDN website and trying to search the discussions for various ... telling me to search using Google Groups, ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsmedia.player.web)