From: david@edenroad.demon.co.uk
On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 12:39:08 -0600, personalpages.tds.net/~rcsilk wrote:
> "David Mitchell" wrote in message
> news:pan.2004.12.31.08.05.58.805383@edenroad.demon.co.uk...
>
> My statements are based upon my past experiences, and as such are not
> subject to determinations of "right or wrong" -- they are what they are,
Wrong, in this case.
Of course they can be right or wrong - they're memories.
> and I am the sole authority on what I have experienced.
I completely agree that you are the sole authority of what your memories
tell you.
But that's not the point - your memory isn't perfect.
> What you fail
> to grasp is that people have their own authority over their own
> experiences, and you insist on *trying* to deny them the truths of their
> own past.
No Dick, I'm proving that your memory is fallible, and that you sometimes
make mistakes in reasoning.
> This makes you a fuck-wit, nothing else.
Still "trying" to be polite, I see.
> If this were a TECH
> bulletin board, then yes, your points would be FAR more valid and useful
> to people out there working on real problems, whereas my comments would
> be anecdotal at best, and only useful to perhaps one tenth of one
> percent of the readers who may have an issue with a much older version
> of Unix.
Where something is posted has no bearing on whether it's right or wrong,
nor does how "useful" it is.
> At MTSU, I had the privilege of studying under people who were
> around when the Net was *invented* back in the
> military-and-university-only days.
Ah, the old appeal to authority.
>> You aren't explaining, you're asserting - there's a difference.
>
> One that you seem incapable of accepting.
Don't be silly: I can clearly discern that there's a difference - what you
appear to be trying now is to say that it doesn't really matter that
you're wrong (presumably because it's not a "TECH" newsgroup).
Nice try; but facts are facts Dick. You stated a fact, I showed you it
was wrong, and pasted extracts from reliable sources to support my claim.
Your only counter seems to be that your personal experience is a _more_
reliable guide to reality (yes we're back on that again), than the actual
facts - which is absurd - and that I shouldn't even try to challenge your
experience because that would be 'denying you the truth of your own past'.
I can't even begin to tell you how stupid and contemptible I find such
behaviour.
>> Not being willing to believe you over the evidence supplied by the
>> operating system itself does not make me a brick wall.
>
> Stating that MY assertions of MY OWN PAST EXPERIENCES is "wrong" makes
> you a brick-wall-fuck-wit.
Only if you have the belief, as you seem to have, that your
understanding at the time was correct, and your memory is perfect - both
of which are clearly untrue.
>> I have no reason to believe the "pressure of work" excuse - I've
>> noticed that you've bailed out before when you've lost a protracted
>> argument.
>
> my real life often intrudes upon my time and energy to deal with
> fuckwits on the net. Thus, I leave after realizing that the fuckwit in
> question will never be able to see my point.
Is "fuckwit" comsidered a polite expression where you come from, or are
you just not trying very hard?
--
=======================================================================
= David --- If you use Microsoft products, you will, inevitably, get
= Mitchell --- viruses, so please don't add me to your address book.
=======================================================================
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
