Re: A new early Holocene human skeleton from Brazil

From: Steve Marcus (smarcus_spamout__at_cox.net)
Date: 03/24/05 

Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 05:41:47 -0500

"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:dli441dl1q46p7fa7f1kka05l7mc2kglni@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 21:02:50 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
> <smarcus_spamout_@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
>>news:8254411j6ghsbf102k8bvn2aacm1ctm4t6@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 18:43:35 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
>>> <smarcus_spamout_@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
>>>>news:1gr341h0d8fvr1fjmb4u94mnfo6vc28s0v@4ax.com...
>>>>> On 23 Mar 2005 13:44:40 -0800, a.manansala@attbi.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Philip Deitiker wrote:
>>>>>>> In sci.anthropology.paleo, created a message ID
>>>>>>> news:1111596969.347053.66080@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [I thought the guy was in my killfile]
>>>>>>> <plonk>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I've never been in your "killfile" and you know this very well.
>>>>>>You even join other groups to read my messages. <plonk>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Philip claims to have a kill file but it never seems to work.
>>>>
>>>>Pot, kettle, black.
>>>>
>>>>And you claim to have me on "ignore", by which you claim to mean that
>>>>you
>>>>only reply to posts that you think warrant a reply. How you determine
>>>>which
>>>>posts those are without reading all of the posts remains an "unsolved
>>>>mystery", and evidently involves a somewhat unique definition of the
>>>>word
>>>>"ignore."
>>>>>
>>>
>>> "somewhat unique" LOL
>>>
>>> Who would hire a lawyer who mangles logic so?
>>
>>? Perhaps you might have understood if I had written "somewhat unique."
>>
>>Since you evidently need it spelled out for you try this: Unless you are
>>using a "somewhat unique" definition of the word "ignore", you _aren't_
>>ignoring a post by reading it. and you _aren't_ ignoring anything posted
>>by
>>me if you read everything I post in order to find the posts that you think
>>"requires" a reply.
>
> I have a 3-1/2 year old granddaughter playing in the room below. I'm
> aware of what she is doing but I continue to ignore it until she goes
> too far. I am sure you can follow the analogy.
>>
>>Not even the best lawyer on the planet could extricate you from the knots
>>you've tied yourself in trying to get yourself out of having been caught
>>in
>>a baldfaced lie. You claimed to have me "on ignore" (note the inclusion
>>of
>>the word on in the quotation marks; see: http://tinyurl.com/3wr9x ) and
>>that lasted about 1 post made the next day. You are the last person
>>entitled to call someone else on a claim of having kill filed another
>>poster.
>
> I bet I'm not. Do you want to bet?

Sure Eric. What shall we bet, and how would you prove your point? Perhaps
by claiming that I lied re the plug-in that was installed on my old 16-bit
sytem that enabled me to kill file Usenet posts. How would you prove your
claim? And you claim to be someone who deals with evidence for a living.

>
> Or didn't you quite mean what you wrote in that last sentence either?

I meant every word. While we are at it, should be discuss your claim that
I'm a patent attorney?? As it happens, the proof that I'm not is readily
available on the Internet. Last time I offered to show your claim to be
wrong, you shut up about it pretty damned quickly.
>
> You should read Lewis Carrol on the subject.

Why? I know what sarcasm is and don't need Carrol or dictionary to explain
it to me. That you failed to understand that "somewhat unique" was
sarcastic (perhaps because I didn't originally put the phrase in quotes;
given that you appear to have difficulty reading for comprehension, that
certainly was my bad) doesn't mean that I, and others, share your failure.
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
>
Steve 

-- 
The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice,
because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and
should not be construed as either.  This posting does not
represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal
view.  To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A new early Holocene human skeleton from Brazil
    ... > You should read Lewis Carrol on the subject. ... I know what sarcasm is and don't need Carrol or dictionary to explain ... The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice, ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Are you now, or have you ever been, a troll?
    ... Posting 100 lines of excuses about Democrats doesn't ... issues than you will ever be so quit making shit up to attack me. ... Just the pink that's emblematic of cowardly anarchists like you who burn ... sarcasm your way. ...
    (misc.survivalism)
  • Re: Spirit Pond, Maine
    ... You seem to think that peer review means "error free." ... The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice, ... >> The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice, ... >> represent the opinion of my employer, ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: KRS - Possible news to come
    ... are told that only part of the evidence will be disclosed, ... people know all the evidence (like you, Inger) while others will have to ... The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice, ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Question Greenland Greenlanders 1456
    ... >> You are a liar. ... >> allege they mean. ... >> The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice, ... This posting does not ...
    (sci.archaeology)