Re: Alignments of the Newport Tower

On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 17:11:51 GMT, Doug Weller
<dweller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 21:29:06 +1300, in sci.archaeology, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 05:45:02 GMT, Doug Weller
<dweller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


--- snip ----

Let me see. David B makes a side comment on the Plowden documents, I
inform him of the article I wrote. I hope you don't take offense at my
responding to something that isn't part of the subject line.

David B later comments on another page on my web site.

Inger's response says that neither David B nor I are qualified to comment
on this question, but at this point in the thread David B and I are
talking about the Plowden documents and I have never commented directly on
the alignments although my first post did mention someone's bathroom that
had Pi, etc embedded in it.

I took her response to be an attempt to say something meaningful about the
subthread she was responding to. That is all clear in the attributions,
and the word alignment isn't mentioned in your quotes at all. And I
wasn't trying to change the subject, I was responding to David B.

What is unclear about that?

What is unclear about that is that theattributions say you were
responding to Inger. Nowhere in your response did you say you were
responding to David B via Inger. All of this confusion would have been
avoided if you had made your response where it belonged - directly to
David B.


Slaps head. Of course, why didn't I think of it. David B and I are having
a discussion, Inger butts in and says
"Neither of you are qualified in this question. Penhallow is."

So my reply to that should have been addressed to David B.

And in Message-ID: <gc3rr21bml1auh0andtuhonkh4plsambjt@xxxxxxx> you
said it was Doug, you said it was.

No, Eric, all of this confusion is in your mind. My reply was meant to be
to Inger.

... and in fact Doug, it was.


You keep missing it, Eric. It's not just me that you misunderstand, it's
others as well. And attributions are definitely not your strong point as I
know to my cost.

Doug,

The kindest thing I can sasy to that remark is that you are being
disingenuous. I quoted the attribution at the head of your message
which started all this AND YOUR MESSAGE WAS IN REPLY TO INGER. It
doesn't matter that in your mind you were replying to David B. In
fact, YOU WERE REPLYING TO INGER. That's what the attributions at the
head of an article are intended to do. They are to tell the reader to
whom it is that the author is responding.

There were no tags in your message to explain the actual state of
affairs and that is where the confusion arose. The fact that you have
later explained what you really meant has had no effect on the content
of the message which started all this.

I wrote:

Slaps head. Of course, why didn't I think of it. David B and I are having
a discussion, Inger butts in and says
"Neither of you are qualified in this question. Penhallow is."

So my reply to that should have been addressed to David B.

No, Eric, all of this confusion is in your mind. My reply was meant to be
to Inger.

Notice the 'no, Eric'.

Let me put this in kindergarten terms.

David and I are talking about Plowden.
Inger butts in and says we aren't qualified in this question -- which at
the time is Plowden, not Penhallow, and says that Penhallow is qualified.

SO I RESPOND TO HER AND SAY PENHALLOW PROBABLY NEVER EVEN READ THE DAMN
PLOWDEN DOCUMENTS!

This is getting more confused with every cycle.

Inger wrote:

">>Neither of you are qualified in this question. Penhallow is.
>>For those who want a bit more information it's possible to get it
>>at: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997BaltA...6...71P

.... which URL deals with Penhallow's CV.

You then responded TO INGER

>I studied the actual Plowden documents, I've seen no evidence
>that Penhallow has actually read them.

I then replied:

Nor have I seen evidence that Penhallow has mentioned them. I
suspect you are trying to change the subject and Inger is staying
with the original.

In fact, David B had changed the subject to the discussion of the
location of an island mentioned in the Plowden petition and you had
changed it once again to a discussion of the Plowden petition itself.
You have now confirmed that (for some incomprehensible reason) you
were discussing Penhallow's qualifications to discuss the Plowden
petition. I seem to have been quite right. You (and David B) were
trying to change the subject while Inger was staying more or less with
the original.


The 'no, Eric' means that my reply about Inger's statement about David B
and I not being qualified should not have been to David, but to the person
who wrote it, Inger. I was being too subtle, apologies but I am really
pissed off with this. Inger told David and me we didn't know what we were
talking about, and I responded to her.

Which is what I always assumed from the attributions but, earlier you
claimed you were responding to David B ... :-(




Eric Stevens
.

Loading