Posted by Blinky the Shark on 01/26/06 04:58

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 09:54:58 +1100, dorayme wrote:

> 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.

<offering to shake hands>

--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

[Back to original message]