Re: digest 2453240

From: dizzy (dizzy_at_nospam.invalid)
Date: 09/02/04 

Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 02:45:15 GMT

"Michael Lockhart" wrote:

tholen@antispam.ham tholed:

>> You had nothing to do with any of it until you decided to get involved,
>> Lockhart.
>
>No one ever has anything to do with any thread until they decide to get
>involved, in general. That is meaningless. Are you complaining that you
>would like to discuss the snipped material with me, and my snipping has in
>some way deprived you of the pleasure? If not, cease your disingenuous (and
>ironic) complaining and return to the matter at hand: why have you
>apparently ceased you digestification and gone back to individual replies?

The "figures" from tholokook is obviously intentionally antagonistic.
There's no other reason for the "figures" in a case like this, where
snipping was quite appropriate.

>> That despite having previously stated that I deserve no more
>> replies.
>
>Your renewed obnoxiousness demanded my attention.

Renewed?

>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that I posted "moronic nonresponses",
>>>> Lockhart.
>>> Hardly.
>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
>Your posts continually substantiate that fact.

>From the perspective of a moron, tholen's responses indeed do not
appear to be moronic.

>> You still haven't explained what your question has to do with classical
>> music, Lockhart.
>
>You still haven't answered my question, which I asked first.

Refusing to answer questions is one of the many ways to thole.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: digest 2453240
    ... > Michael Lockhart writes: ... apparently ceased you digestification and gone back to individual replies? ... Your posts continually substantiate that fact. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: digest 2453240
    ... > Michael Lockhart writes: ... >> digestification and gone back to individual replies? ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: digest 2453240
    ... > Michael Lockhart writes: ... >> As you, yourself, continually say, this is a new iteration of the ... Lockhart. ... >> digestification and gone back to individual replies? ...
    (sci.astro)