XPost: sci.astro, sci.physics, sci.space.policy
From: fjmccall@gmail.com
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Doc O'Leary wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> For your reference, records indicate that
>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Doc O'Leary
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > I really can?t be bothered to figure out the messes you get
yourself
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > into. You?ll have to pay me if you want me to do your tech
support.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unreadable and it is not a utf-8 issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> [rest of support request snipped]
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you sent me a check? If so, you?re going to have to wait
until I
>>>>>>>>>>>> can cash it. If not, take your 1980s tech woes elsewhere.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>The solution on my end is simple; ignore posts that don't adhere to
the RFC.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Where is it non-compliant. Since it looks fine to everyone but you,
>>>>>>>>>> are you sure it isn't YOUR end that is not RFC compliant?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Rean the RFC.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> OK. Your reception is non-compliant.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Bile spewing idiot.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So your complaint that his transmission is non-compliant in the face
>>>>>> of it looking fine to everyone but you would be what?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>When was your poll taken to determine the percentage of people that see
>>>>>those characters as a single quote?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why are you the only one complaining, Jim?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Only one to notice.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, that's what I've said, but you wanted to argue with me about it.
>> Nobody else sees it, Jim. It's just YOU.
>>
>
>And your poll was taken when, space cadet, or are you claiming to be
>able to read minds now?
>
You can't even AGREE with Jimp the Simp Chimp without him wanting to
argue. Chimp, *YOU* said "Only one to notice" in response to my
asking you why you were the only one complaining. I agreed with your
response and now you want to know when *I* ran a poll? When did YOU
run a poll, dipshit?
>>>
>>>Only one to make the effort to comment.
>>>
>>
>> And nobody bothered even when you started caterwauling about it? Why
>> do they all hate you so, Jim?
>>
>
>"caterwauling"?
>
Look it up. I'll try to restrict myself to one syllable words in
future so that perhaps you can follow along.
>
>If anyone is caterwauling it is you, going on and on and on and on and on
>about something that has nothing to do with you.
>
Perhaps if you actually answered the questions instead of ducking
them? Just a thought.
>>>
>>>A statement of fact is not a complaint.
>>>
>>
>> Really? On what planet?
>
>All of them.
>
Bullshit. Are you stupid or are you a liar?
>
>
>> Let me help you out. "This meat is overcooked." Assuming the meat
>> actually is overcooked, that's a statement of fact. It's also a
>> complaint about the state of the meat.
>>
>
>Only to the thin skinned and ultra sensitive, which fits you very well.
>
So it's stupid and you don't know the meaning of the word 'complaint'.
So what does 'complaint' mean on Planet Chimp? Here on Earth where
English speaking humans live it means "a statement that a situation is
unsatisfactory". You know, like the overdone meat isn't satisfactory.
>> Now tell me again how a "statement of fact is not a complaint".
>
>A statement of fact is not a complaint.
>
You're stupid. You seem to think that a complaint must be untrue.
Perhaps that's the case with you, but the rest of us aren't like you.
>>>>>
>>>>>Why do you care so much that you keep going on about it?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because I think it gives great insight into how your head works (or
>>>> doesn't). You're the only one complaining, yet you insist that the
>>>> problem must be at his end. Typical of you. Jim is never wrong; it's
>>>> always the other guy.
>>>
>>>And you are the only school yard bully going on and on and on and on
>>>about it.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why did you bring it up?
>>>
>>>Because reading his posts were annoying, but I have solved that problem.
>>>
>>
>> Yet here you are, still caterwauling about it.
>
>You are the one going on and on and on and on and on about something
>that has absolutely nothing to do with you.
>
You 'solved the problem' (from your perspective, which solution is to
simply steadfastly ignore that part of reality; very like your usual
'solution' to things). So why are you still wanking on about it?
>
>If anyone is caterwauling it is you.
>
Yeah, Chimp. It's always someone else and never you...
--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
