|
|
Posted by dorayme on 10/25/07 22:40
In article <w40Ui.4451$CN4.4168@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
"rf" <rf@invalid.com> wrote:
> Where was I impolite?
1. In your jarring gratuitously nasty intervention in a harmless
and polite exchange between Travis and me in another thread very
recently.
2. In asterisking me in this thread. Asterisking me is like
waving a wooden cross at a vampire. You simply have no
interplanetary social skills have you?
> > When I read doraymes post there was no explicit indication to me that she
> was offering up that URL as a place giving out bad advice. The OP or any
> other newbie reading that post might quite well take the URL as being
> offered up as a good example,
I would love to have a bet with you on this. Submit a plan for a
statistically significant trial. Loser pays the considerable
costs involved.
Having difficulty understanding what I am saying. You want it
less ambiguously? OK. You said something that implies a
prediction.
Having difficulty understanding what I am saying? You want it
less ambiguously? Ok. You are implying that if a statistically
significant number of people read my post, a number of them would
go away with the wrong impression.
And you would, if you knew the slightest thing about these
matters of public education, be meaning that the misled would be
statistically significantly more than the misled over a better
worded post. (No matter what is written there are always people
who misunderstand).
> At least my posts are to the point, not brain dumps of meaningless ramblings
> that I see an increasing number of people answering with "WTF are you
> talking about?"
I have two comments on this:
1. Evidence of the increasing perplexity please?
2. Use the other hand mate, that one must be getting awfully
tired.
Still having difficulty understanding what I am saying. You want
it less ambiguously? OK. get stuffed! Is that simple enough for
you?
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|