Re: furthering the irrelevant

In article <jie7g1l1n8d33td0er4aubee1e8q5cd2sc@xxxxxxx>,
nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> Apparently on date Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:12:29 -0400, Horace LaBadie
> <hwlabadiejr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
>
> >In article <2hv6g15kgss66hv120gm04oqjm3nef3edf@xxxxxxx>,
> > nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >
> >> Apparently on date Wed, 17 Aug 2005 09:50:51 -0400, Horace LaBadie
> >> <hwlabadiejr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
> >>
> >> >In article <giq5g15kdegoghg4tegohnknij29h683go@xxxxxxx>,
> >> > nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >><si8sf1lq13c5dj0ado965ae6g8sjcf4e16@xxxxxxx> nospam was excluding the
> >> >> >>USA so he cannot have been talking about Minnesota.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I can see where it can be interpreted that way, but I really did think
> >> >> >he
> >> >> >meant Minnesota -- I guess I just assumed he wouldn't have mentioned
> >> >> >it
> >> >> >if
> >> >>
> >> >> Still, if a group of "non crackpots" must try and find a crackpot
> >> >> alternative
> >> >> of what someone says and then want to argue that:
> >> >> a) it must have been what they meant to say
> >> >> b) it is wrong
> >> >>
> >> >> Then go ahead, it's a pretty stupid hobby, but hey.
> >> >>For the record: "I was not talking about Minnesota"
> >> >
> >> ><http://eurekatownship-mn.us/>
> >>
> >>
> >> So you're saying I was referring to Minnesota then?
> >>
> >> That's another lie, isn't it. Do you enjoy doing that? Or is it
> >> involuntary?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >You dishonestly cut the line to which I replied, to wit:
> >
> >>Given that Minnesota is in the USA and does not contain anywhere called
> >>Eureka
> >
> >HWL
>
>
> Do you think I am referring to Minnesota? This is a simple question.
>
> The next one will be "do you think I was referring to Minnesota".
>
>

You dishonestly cut the line to which I replied, to wit:

>Given that Minnesota is in the USA and does not contain anywhere called
>Eureka

Your original post was ambiguous, at best, and in the context appeared
to refer to the USA. Your clarification about Eureka only deepened the
impression that you meant MN.

Your repeated attempts to spin the original imprecision, which led to
the subsequent nastiness of your personal attacks, have not lessened the
impression that you were being cute with the language in order to
present some irrelevant speculation as though it were an insight about
Norse penetration of the interior of NA in the present day USA.

But feel free to continue the irrelevancy and misrepresentation.

HWL
.

Relevant Pages
Loading