Re: Highlight reel from the George and Phil show, Re: I am really getting tired of people stepping all over my conversations

I said I would read George's response to my post, and I
have (both that I see right now, the ones starting
"I DID NOT SAY *that*." and "Now THAT was a constructive
comment."). I thought before that I would let George have
the last word, and I still intend to do so. However,
it took George 12 days to respond, so it might not be
clear from just my previous statement that I did, in fact,
read his late addition to our subthread.

I am satisfied with the case I have presented for
whatever points I wanted to make, and so I am winding
up my involvement in this subthread. Presumably, either
George is also satisfied with his case now or he will be
after some number of additional posts, at which point he
will wind up his involvement, too.

As a summing up, all I ask of whoever may look over this
excruciatingly insignificant subthread (one point George
and I agree on) is that they look at the thread itself
rather than merely what George asserts is in the thread
(and the same treatment for me, as well).

For example, just below, George asserts "I DID NOT SAY
*that*." All I ask is that you, the third party, go
see what George did say.

Take it away, George.

Jim Burns

george wrote:
James Burns wrote:

This could be point (5): That you lied below, in saying
I did not unsnip the references that you snipped out.


I DID NOT SAY *that*.


If you lie about that, what wouldn't you lie about?
But I don't really count that. It's clear that you did
lie,


Your lack of clarity DOES NOT CONSTITUTE my lack
of veracity. I finally checked this.


but it's about such meaningless and easily checked fact,


This fact is NOT meaningless and your characterization of it AS
a fact is not even correct. I did NOT allege that you did not
unsnip something. YOU HAVE TO QUOTE PEOPLE, DUMBASS.
You have to respond IN A TIMELY FASHION to what is
ACTUALLY present INSTEAD OF responding days later
WITH YOUR LAME GLOSS ON what ACTUALLY happened.


that I don't really understand why you did.


What you claim was unsnipped WAS NOT PRESENT
*at* the point where it was relevant. LET US LOOK
AGAIN, this time *IN* context, at what WAS ACTUALLY
posted:


(1) You snipped the last seven references from
my previous post (unsnipped now). (2) Those snipped
messages showed a lower level of invective compared to
what you usually use (as you had previously said).
(3) You gave those snipped messages new subject
headings (which you had previously said you'd done).
I think the most likely explanation of all this is
that you may not want to admit it but, YES, I DID.


*> [...]

You are not even FINDING the thread being discussed,
EVEN after all this looking. This is a BREATHTAKING
display of incompetence.


You are moving the goalposts, George. I am not interested
in quoting all 1000+ posts back to you.


THAT is how YOU began.
PLEASE NOTE the [...] THAT YOU chose to include.

I was responding sequentially, and since you had claimed in (1)
that you had unsnipped, THIS IS WHERE I WAS EXPECTING
what was unsnipped TO OCCUR. When you [...]'ed, I jumped
to the conclusion that you had omitted it AGAIN.
This message continues for a LONG time but the allegedly
unsnipped stuff DOES NOT FINALLY SHOW UP until
THE BITTER END, like an appendix.

THAT was *stupid*, STUPID.

More to the point, you cited 11 messages.
In the first 4, Phil was replying to me.
My point was that those were not the chain
I was talking about. I quoted your citation in rebutting
it. You then whined that I snipped the remaining 7 references,
which you then had to restore. But the remaining 7 were NOT
relevant. ONLY ONE of them was me replying to Phil.
NONE of them was Phil replying IN THAT thread, to me.

The fact that I called you a coward for not re-presenting
these messages is irrelevant on bunches and bunches of levels.
In the first place, precisely as I just quoted, they did NOT get
re-presented IN CONTEXT AT THE LOGICAL POINT where you
had led people to expect that they would occur. In the second
place, THEY WERE NEVER RELEVANT. ONE of them
was on the subthread in question but YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHICH
one, which was why you needed to re-post the other 6, and
taken as a whole, the 7 did NOT support your thesis. The 4
of your citations THAT I DID *NOT* snip were the 4 that WOULD
tend to support it and that I therefore NEEDED to rebut. Your
dredging up the ones I DID snip did NOT, as you idiotically
seemed to think, wind up supporting your thesis and thereby
demonstrating that *I* was evil for having misleadingly snipped
them. I was just trying to FOCUS on the argument while YOU
were just scattershooting buckshot and praying to hit something.


In any case, just as a general rule, if you are going to keep
arguing with people who have to read this using Google,
DON'T PUT LONG QUOTE BLOCKS AT THE END, because
they can get closed up or not seen for any of the following 3
reasons: 1) they are a long quote block; Google will hide it and
ask you to click to see it; 2) they are long and at the end,
and therefore susceptible to Google's "read more:" link: it hides
the ENTIRE end of every sufficiently LONG message behind one
of those, and asks you to click to open/see the rest; 3) long means
it may just be below the bottom of the window on the screen; SCROLLING
may be required to see it, and it may not be immediately obvious that
there is more to see, if what is on the screen already looks like it
has already ended.

The point is simply that everybody is obligated to try to help the
discussion get conducted efficiently. Some people would rather
make things harder to see and then call readers evil for claiming
that they weren't there (this is you, ***).



And, one last time, "Phil's lack of reply to the relevant
messages" is remarkably unimportant to anything I was
writing about and, so, must be more stuff coming out of
your mind, George.


And you're a damn liar.
That was OBVIOUSLY THE WHOLE point of the
conversation. It was certainly YOUR WHOLE point.
You were writing these chains of citations to prove
that PHIL DID reply to me. When I disagreed, you
further attacked me by claiming that I was lying about
what you had unsnipped. This was ALL about proving
what or who Phil did or didn't reply to, and by trying to
deny it now, you just make yourself look more evil.



And that's it. George couldn't bear to see those allegedly
incorrect references of mine on the page, so he snipped
them again.


Your theorizing about what I can or cannot bear is very
irrelevant. I snipped them because they were at the bottom
of the page and I snipped the WHOLE bottom, since *I* was
through talking about the points that I was going to address.
There was more IN the message bottom BELOW THE BOTTOM
OF THE SCREEN at the time I snipped, so as far as your
restored citations were concerned,
I never even GOT TO them. I never even SAW them. HAD I
seen them, I would've KNOWN that they CONTRADICTED
my "TOO DAMN COWARDLY" insult from before and would've
amended that.

.