Re: The Chronicles of Bob Ling's bumbLINGs

Russell:

Here is what I wrote;
I presume you haven't seen Bob Ling's choice of words. Why not take a
look at his postings in a thread I started and then comment?

I was talking about Bob Ling's posts in a THREAD I STARTED and his
choice of words ABOUT ME. You stopped after "I presume" and did not go
to the second sentence, which clarifies the first sentence.

Russell.Martin@xxxxxxx wrote:
Nag wrote:
Russell,

I have no problem with your first post but your second post puzzles me.

If you had no trouble with my first post, why did you
comment on it?

Because I wanted to clarify my post. I was not offended by your first
post but your second and third posts do.

You were commenting about my post and not vice versa.

In my second post I was commenting on your comment on
my first post.

Which was made in response to your first post.
Only after you started ...... you should have put in the effort before
your first post and read Bob Ling's posts about me and then posted.

Hence you, not I,
should have done some work and gathered data

I had. I've read RF's posts. Why did you "presume" I
hadn't?

Why do you break in mid-sentence?
I am referring to RF's posts "about me" and not in general.
If you did, you wouldn't have used the word "gratuitous". See next
response.

(about my interaction with
Bob Ling) before jumping in with words like "gratuitous".

I didn't "jump". IMO it was gratuitous.

You did jump. Are you saying you read Bob Ling's posts to me and still
think my post is gratuitous? Then I do not give a damn about your
opinion.

Why should I
care about your past with Bob Ling?

Because you presumed, falsely, that I "haven't seen Bob
Ling's choice of words". I have seen many of them and
I was suggesting you had had the opportunity to avoid
making that mistake, which you did not take advantage of.

But you did not see his posts about me ... which you avoid
acknowledging.
Again see previous comment.

Am I supposed to dig into the
"history" of every one who responds to my post?

If you want to make comments about things without
falsely "presuming", then yes.

Same stuff ... see previous comments.


Are you saying the only way to respond to Bob Ling is "your" way and no
other way? And you will agree only if I follow your way?

No, I just expressed my opinion about your way. Are
you saying I have no right to do that?

Re-read what you said.


About being "off topic", I am indeed guilty. But that is a consequence
of an unmoderated group (I support a moderated group) and an
irresponsible poster and my choice of how to deal with him.

Best
Nag

Sure. And your choice is to add to the noise instead
of coming straight to the point and just telling RF you
don't think his approach is helpful to the NG. Fine, I
just wanted to point that out.

That's my choice. You had your choice, which did not have any effect on
Bob Ling. Maybe mine will.

Best
Nag

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: BSOD
    ... Oh and I meant to sayBSOD not BOSD as in my first post.. ... Have a super Day, Bob. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.mediacenter)
  • Re: win2k drives
    ... Thanks for the reply,Bob. ... In fact device manager ... As I said in my first post The drive is not ... Post the error message and someone can help. ...
    (microsoft.public.win2000.hardware)
  • Re: Its official. Bruce Kelly sells U.S. Rockets motors at Balls 2005
    ... >> Don't try to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man, Bob. ... >> Poor Phil ... This is the first post I've seen from that asshole in about a month. ...
    (rec.models.rockets)
  • Re: Hitler elected?
    ... Bob G wrote: ... Is Godwin's law invoked by the first post of a thread? ... again repeated the canard that Hitler was elected. ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: The Chronicles of Bob Lings bumbLINGs
    ... I have no problem with your first post but your second post puzzles me. ... Why did you "presume" I ... Bob Ling) before jumping in with words like "gratuitous". ...
    (sci.stat.math)