Re: A new early Holocene human skeleton from Brazil

From: Eric Stevens (eric.stevens_at_sum.co.nz)
Date: 03/25/05 

Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 21:54:02 +1200

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 19:18:39 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
<smarcus_spamout_@cox.net> wrote:

>
>"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:rdg6419rhrnvpgouigpdiljm4omrf3joj6@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 05:41:47 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
>> <smarcus_spamout_@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"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?
>>
>> Sorry Steve. It's not my point, it's yours. Remember "You are the last
>> person entitled to call someone else on a claim of having kill filed
>> another". My bet is that I am not the last person to be so entitled. I
>> am sure that if we wait for long enough someone else will be similarly
>> entitled. And then someone after that. Or didn't you realise that that
>> was the point I was making? Surely you understand the explicit meaning
>> of your own words?
>
>Absolutely. "The last person entitled" is idiomatic usage, quite common in
>English, and has nothing at all to do with the literal meaning of the words.
>For example, see ""It is known whose interests Kostov defended in the last
>few years. They certainly were not the national interests, but his own and
>his family's. He is the last person entitled to level accusations at us,
>claiming that we are defending special interests other than the national
>ones," Velchev said." from:
>
>http://www.sofiaecho.com/article/war-of-words-on-bonds/id_4112/catid_23
>
>or "Prime Minister Ehud Barak said that the meeting in Vienna "is troubling
>from a moral point of view." MK Tzvi Hendel (National Union) retorted that
>the Prime Minister is the last person entitled to cast aspersions of this
>kind, "given his appointment of Yossi Ginossar as a political emissary, who
>has major economic interests in the Palestinian Authority." from
>
>http://www.hebroots.org/hebrootsarchive/0102/010218_a.html
>
>or "Mr. Perez is, in fact, the last person entitled to speak about
>terrorism, being directly responsible for the death of one hundred and two
>children, women and elders killed at Cana by the Israeli shelling that
>tracked them to the UNIFIL tent they sought refuge in." from:
>
>http://www.lebanemb.org.au/Aboutus/Speech.html
>
>Yet another example of you not understanding your native tongue. Nota bene
>the international character of the websites linked; perhaps you would like
>to claim that the idiomatic phrase in question hasn't made it to New Zealand
>from Australia.

I'm disappointed. You are now defending the failure of your native wit
to recognise that I was responding to the literal meaning of your
words. Now, when I point it out to you, you get all indignant. "I
didn't mean what I literally said!"
>
>>
>>
>>>>>poster.
>>> 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.
>>
>> And I gave an explicit argument as to why I thought you were lying.
>> Anyone who wants to know more can use Google.
>
>Indeed. Which argument was wrong. Now you are arguing that one can ignore
>posts (which can't be heard, smelled, tasted or otherwise sensed) by reading
>them, every one. A classic Stevens squink generation.

Where have I said that? There is no reason why I can't skim them to
see if you have said anything particularly reprehensible. You are
trying to equate me ignoring most of what you have written with having
you in a kill-file. Well, it isn't the same thing as you should well
know.

>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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 are getting twitchy. You have denied that you are a patent
>> attorney but have never offered any support for that claim.
>
>I expressly stated that if you required proof, I would be happy to supply
>it. See:
>
>http://tinyurl.com/4tdoy
>
>Yet another Stevens lie. The above post must have been one of my posts that
>you "ignored" by reading it, and then, having seen that you were about to be
>outmaneuvered, you didn't take me up on my offer.

That's offering to offer support. I never bothered to take you up on
it but, why don't you lead us to the evidence that you are not a
patent attorney?
>
>> I would be
>> happy to follow it up if you offered it.
>
>But I did. You've yet to ask for the proof.

I have now.
>
>> But you do dress many of your
>> posts with a quasi-legal disclaimer and anyone who browses
>> http://tinyurl.com/4ncs4 will find that you write often and at length
>> on aspects of patent law.
>
>I am also frequently a poster on sci.med.cardiology, but that doesn't make
>me a cardiac surgeon, any more than my posts on sci.archaeology make me an
>archaeologist. I have a deep interest in intellectual property matters, not
>something that is strange for an attorney.
>
>I can tell you that patent attorneys are required to join a special bar
>association before being permitted to practice patent law, and that the
>roster of such attorneys is available on the Internet, as well as
>information confirming the need for patent attorneys to be members of that
>special bar association. Ask, and I'll even do the research for you, since
>you seem intent on proving yourself a liar with respect to what my
>profession is.

Wrong, perhaps, but a liar no. I have no reason to misstate your
profession.
>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> No doubt you wrote the above when your computer was 'somewhat on'.
>
>Still don't understand the meaning of sarcasm, do you?

Here we go back to the beginning. I will quote your original statement
and interpolate comments:

  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.

  [That's a reasonably accurate summation of what I have several
   times said.]

  How you determine which posts those are without reading all of the
  posts remains an "unsolved mystery", ....

  [Here is where you go off the rails. There is no reason why I have
   to read ALL your posts to pick up something worthy of a comment.
   Consider the rest of your above sentence]

   .... and evidently involves a somewhat unique definition of the
   word "ignore."

  [At this point I picked you up on your usage of 'unique'. Something
   either is unique or it is not. It can't be somewhat unique.
   Hence my reference to'somewhat pregnant'and later, to your computer
   being 'somewhat on'. You seem to be trying to ignore the point I
   made and now are claiming that you wrote it in sarcasm. It still
   looks much more like some sloppy vernacular to me.]

Eric Stevens

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A new early Holocene human skeleton from Brazil
    ... and has nothing at all to do with the literal meaning of the words. ... >posts by reading ... There is no reason why I can't skim them to ... >I can tell you that patent attorneys are required to join a special bar ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: A new early Holocene human skeleton from Brazil
    ... > Sorry Steve. ... >>sytem that enabled me to kill file Usenet posts. ... > attorney but have never offered any support for that claim. ... I can tell you that patent attorneys are required to join a special bar ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: A new early Holocene human skeleton from Brazil
    ... > Sorry Steve. ... >>sytem that enabled me to kill file Usenet posts. ... > attorney but have never offered any support for that claim. ... I can tell you that patent attorneys are required to join a special bar ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: OT:" A very disturbed, unravelled person"
    ... it became clear I may never be able find a satisfactory "reason" ... He true core should be less the 10%...The 30% who is dead set against ... Look at the posts here! ... Brain dude have made a lot of progress "understanding" serial killers. ...
    (rec.music.beatles)
  • Re: I hate to admit Engineer was right but too much cross-posting is ruining SRQ
    ... politeness would seem to require not doing something that at least ... (and I do mean, reason, not excuse) ... to avoid being killfiled) I will do so silently so as not to offend ... The harassment always referenced posts to soc.religion.quaker. ...
    (soc.religion.quaker)
Loading