From: cujo@petitmorte.net   
      
   nancygene.andjayme@gmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (NancyGene) wrote in   
   news:48KdnTvKtcCvAMT0nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com:   
      
   >> George J. Dance wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> NancyGene wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> George J. Dance wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> NancyGene wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> George J. Dance wrote:   
   >>>>>> I note that Mr. Fries's OP has been deleted.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> It never came through to JLA Forums, so was not deleted.  JLA   
   >>>>> Forums has some strange rules about links and numbers.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> > Why do you lie so much, NastyGoon? Of course it came through; I   
   >>>> > replied to it. Mr. Fries deleted it only after I'd replied.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> No, Cujo's first attempt to post the message with the headers was   
   >>>>> rejected by JLA Forums and didn't come through to the site.  We   
   >>>>> don't know if it came through to any other sites, but we did not   
   >>>>> see it on JLA Forums.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Cujo's pdf attachment in this thread, which shows the comparison   
   >>>>> headers, has not been deleted.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> > Mr. Fries analyzed the headers on my Davies post, and on a couple   
   >>>> > of posts from different threads. He did not compare it to your   
   >>>> > alleged Davies post; he admitted he didn't have the headers for   
   >>>> > that one, and blamed his failure to find those  on Will (as per   
   >>>> > his usual method). Since his pdf is still in the thread, those   
   >>>> > reading the thread here on JLA can see that for themselves.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> That was a subsequent post from Cujo.   
   >>>   
   >>> Cujo's original post on the subject was not on JLA Forums.  Please   
   >>> prove that it was, George Dunce.  Cujo explained why.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> > GJD: So you've given up arguing that you posted the Davies poem   
   >> > first, and you want to deflect to this instead? Well, fine; we'll   
   >> > talk about whether Mr. Fries's post appeared on JLA or not.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   > No, we haven't "given up" the fact that we posted the Davis poem   
   > first.  How many times do we have to say and prove it to you?   
   >   
   >> Do you understand how posts are threaded on Usenet? Each thread has   
   >> an original post (an OP) with its own subject title. All posts made   
   >> in reply to it (and to each other) are attached to it by the program;   
   >> that's shown by each post's own subject header, which begins with   
   >> "Re:" followed by the subject of the OP. (For example, if the subject   
   >> of an OP was "Christmas." all the replies to it (and the replies to   
   >> them) would have the subject header "Re: Christmas."[/quote]   
   >   
   > George Dunce, you are so computer literate, considering that you are   
   > using a Commodore 64 with no speakers.   
   >   
   >> Now, look at this thread on JLA. The first post, by you, has the   
   >> subject header "Re: THE HEADERS OF EVIDENCE - Cujo wins again." That   
   >> shows it is not the OP; the OP has gone missing from this   
   >> thread./quote]   
   >   
   > Wrong, George Dunce!  It shows that "we" put in the "Re" because we   
   > had the message that Cujo sent to us (that never made it to JLA   
   > Forums).   
      
   AHA! That explains it.   
      
   >> It also shows that the subject of the OP was "THE HEADERS OF EVIDENCE   
   >> - Cujo wins again" which was obviously written by "Cujo" (Mr. Fries).   
   >> That doesn't tell us the content of missing OP; but since the first   
   >> post in the thread is a reply to a post by "Cujo" (the same one I   
   >> replied to) it's reasonable to infer that the post being replied to   
   >> is the missing OP./quote]   
   > The first message is our post because Cujo sent us what he was trying   
   > to post, which JLA Forums rejected.   
   >   
   >> We also know that posters aren't able to delete their own posts to   
   >> JLA (unless they pay for a premium subscription), so it wasn't   
   >> deleted here. /quote]   
   > It never got "here."   
   >   
   >> Besides, we know that Mr. Fries doesn't post on JLA, which is why   
   >> attribution keeps getting messed up in any thread he replies to   
   >> (since Usenet and JLA attribute posts differently). Rather, since he   
   >> posts to Usenet, it's reasonable to think he deleted his post from   
   >> the entirety of Usenet after you replied to it, which caused it to   
   >> disappear from JLA./quote]   
   >   
   > Nonsense.   
      
   I have posted on JLA. There's plenty of evidence of that. JLA is only   
   useful for posting attachments. It destroys the attributions that   
   Douchebag Willie hasn't already ruined and it completely fucks up the   
   references headers.   
      
   >> Why would he do that? Because he didn't realize that you were just   
   >> trolling - just claiming you'd posted first as a joke, to troll me -   
   >> and took your claim seriously. In short, like Will, he got taken in   
   >> by your troll. When he realized that he'd been trolled, he deleted   
   >> the post, or got someone who actually knows how to moderate Usenet   
   >> (perhaps PJ Ross) to do it for him. /quote]   
   >   
   > More Dunce nonsense.  Cujo didn't delete his post from JLA Forums.  It   
   > was never posted on JLA Forums.  Whatever might have been deleted, we   
   > don't know, but he didn't delete the original headers message.   
      
   I suspect this is the stupid software they use for posting. It may have   
   written a record that shouldn't exist and "orphaned" the post it claims   
   "timed out".   
      
   This could have been eliminated by using the proper constraints and   
   foreign keys. I can't state if the database tables/indexesare physically   
   or logically corrupt but I suspect their front end software is the cause.   
      
   >> I realize that won't convince you, since you're still trolling, and   
   >> as a troll you'll never concede that your targets are correct about   
   >> anything - but I hope it's enough to convince any impartial reader of   
   >> the thread.[/quote]   
   >   
   > No, George Dunce, you have based your argument on false information.   
   > WE posted the "Re:."  You should run your "facts" through your trusted   
   > thinker again.  Garbage in/garbage out.   
      
   Team Douchebag seems to have misinterpreted this as "Garbage In, Gospel   
   Out". Shocking, ain't it?   
      
   --   
   "Post-editing someone's statement before replying to it is a sure sign   
   that you have already lost the argument." - Little Willie Douchebag gets   
   another asskicking from Pendragon   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)