Re: I am really getting tired of people stepping all over my conversations

On May 21, 2:39 am, Phil <toob-head...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Jim Burns wrote:

I have a few thought and questions
about this first paragraph.

That is an unusually liberal use of the word
"thought". If you had thought about it, you
would've found the messages.


(1) Why do you assume that I
would want to read the entire
thread, even if it were much shorter?

I DON'T assume that you want to read the thread.
I don't GIVE A *** whether you want to read the
thread. I SAID I counted it a BLESSING that you
had not found the messages, IRrespective of what
you OR ANYone might've WANTED! NObody's WANTS
are RELEVANT to THE FACTS about what happened!
Whether anyone WANTS it that way or not, Phil
DID ask me to provide a proof, I DID reply calmly
and technically, and MoeBlee DID falsely claim
to have "already" given the kind of proof requested
NOT of him BUT OF ME, which he should've KNOWN
would be idiotic since I HAD read all of what MoeBlee
had previously provided and could (AND DID) obviously
just REFER PHIL TO IT, IF it were what was meant,
as opposed to being BURDENED with developing another
treatment.

Given the two replies, Phil elected to continue along
MoeBlee's by thanking MoeBlee for proving that I had
not known what I was talking about when I said I would
provide a modern proof. This is Phil thanking MoeBlee
for providing a proof that I understand and Phil doesn't,
and thinking that it means he doesn't need to engage
my proof EVEN AFTER HE ASKED FOR IT.
MoeBlee himself eventually came to see how worthless
such "agreement" was; more than a month AFTER *that*
meeting of their minds, MoeBlee is telling Phil he is too
stupid to understand the previously provided "modern"
proofs. And Phil claims to be "appreciative"?!?!?
MoeBlee may know how to prove these theorems but
he does not know how to participate constructively in
this conversation. Just allowing the subthreads to
remain separated topically&conversationally (instead of
cross-cutting so of chaotically) would've been a significant
contribution, but he has BRAGGED about not even
giving a ***.

My experience of kook threads
(or, perhaps, more generously,
extreme unorthodoxy threads)
has been that everyone repeats
the same point over and over and over,

There has been a lot of that here, but this thread
is driven by Phil. Nobody can predict from one day
to the next what Phil is going to react to, unfortunately
BECAUSE HE HAS SO MANY CHOICES.
My contribution to controlling that is to SPLIT
MESSAGES INTO DIFFERENT POINTS.
He could then reply to the point addressed in
the relevant part. He prefers to reply with 300-line
monsters to other people, though, attacking me while
talking to THEM.

ad nauseum. I usually
read a small sample of posts from such threads,
and I believe
(unverifiably, alas) that I gather thereby a large
percentage of the content, at a small percentage
of the full cost in tedium and aggravation.

I entirely agree. THIS PARTICULAR ARGUMENT,
however, is about FOUR SPECIFIC messages,
and if you haven't found them,
SHUT THE *** UP, bitch.



.

Quantcast