Posted by dorayme on 01/26/06 00:54

In article
<pan.2006.01.25.10.16.50.815009@thurston.blinkynet.net>,
Blinky the Shark <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote:

> On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 20:03:01 +1100, dorayme wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <pan.2006.01.25.07.36.42.703326@thurston.blinkynet.net>,
> > Blinky the Shark <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 18:10:37 +1100, dorayme wrote:
> >>
> >> > In article
> >> > <pan.2006.01.25.06.12.29.21860@thurston.blinkynet.net>,
> >> > Blinky the Shark <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>The attribution *to nothing* was sloppy but only confusing to >
> >> >>someone who doesn't understand attribution in general. So far, that
> >> >>seems to belimted to dorayme.
> >>
> >> And should I complain about your quoting, there? After all, I didn't
> >> write it that way, with gt's scattered all throughout the paragraph.
> >> You are misrepresenting that, by showing them that way when they were
> >> originally on the left margin where they belong.
> >>
> >>
> > You have lost me?
>
> Why would you ask me that? How would I know?
>

Phew! What a bad temper! What do you understand that I have asked
you? I meant simply that I could not see what was wrong with my
quoting and could not see scattered >s (except one that I
mentioned). And I go on later to think more about and entertain
the possibility we are seeing different things, that maybe there
is something about our respective newsreaders.

> > Your posts look to me exactly like the png I sent a while back in the
> > link, gt signs or alternative lines at left Nothing is particularly
> > scattered?
>
> You seem to have cleaned them up, up there. Only one remains. That's not
> good, presenting as a quote something you've doctored. It's no longer a
> quote, then.
>

Right! First you give the whole world the impression it was me
who buys lewd mags and gets excited by them, then you try to
brush it off saying it is only me who would get that impression.
When I give you some evidence of how it appeared, you say I
doctored things and directly insult me. I take some exception to
this accusation. You are totally out of line here. I did not
doctor anything. Post pics of relevant representations (perhaps
the Google ones so they are independent of particular news
clients, browsers tend to represent things more evenly perhaps)
and show in detail where you are saying I have "doctored" things.
You made the accusation, now put up or shut up.

> > There seems to be some significant difference between how you are
> > viewing them and how I am viewing? Is there some wrapping problem?
>
> At your end, yes.
>

Never give an inch eh? When I invite rapproachment by suggesting
there may be issues to do with how things are appearing at each
end - in other words "Hey, this may not be either of our faults"
- you decide that unconsolable and remorseless is the way to go.

> > In what I see above there is a ">" between "confusing to" and "someone".
> > This is a scattered ">". It appears in all my newsreaders and it
> > appeared before this reply.
>
> Yes, it started appearing with one of your earlier replies.
>

Yes, you are right on this, I looked up article 59 in the thread
and it was not there but did appear in my 61. It appears in
slightly different places subsequently. I do not know how this
happened. But I accept this one was not from you. But I am
puzzled by all the others you claim which I do not see. To be
clear, I am not saying you invented these things, just that I do
not see any significant scattering of ">"s.

But perhaps it is silly to try to be reasonable with someone who
is in such a brutal mood. Maybe go back to your magazine and
finish things off, you might be in a better mood then.

--
dorayme

[Back to original message]