Re: The Chronicles of Bob Ling's bumbLINGs

Nag wrote:
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.

The connection between your first and second sentences was
not explicit. And your presumption was incorrect, about which
you appear to stand unrepentant.


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.

Why are you offended by my opinion that your approach
to RF is counterproductive and only adds to the noise?
You may well disagree, but it is hardly something to be
offended about. That's part of the problem with many of
the people on this NG, IMO, too much ego ready and even
eager to take offense (a trait that I'm not totally lacking,
I'm willing to admit).


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.

RF's posts didn't effect my opinion that you should approach
him in a straight forward manner and avoid cutesy lists, which
IMO only adds to the noise. In my expereince RF responds
best to a straightforward discussion of the facts.


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?

Because I want to. Will the moderated group you
support enforce a "no breaking in mid-sentence" rule? :-)

I am referring to RF's posts "about me" and not in general.

You should have made that explicit about 3 posts ago.

If you did, you wouldn't have used the word "gratuitous".

No, I still would have, because your list just adds to
the noise unnecessarily, without getting to the basics
of your problems with what RF posted, IMO.

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

Yes, I had read them.

and still
think my post is gratuitous?

I'm saying, for the Nth time, that IMO your response was
gratuitous due to its form. If you didn't like what RF posted
about you, respond to it explicitly.

Then I do not give a damn about your
opinion.

And I don't give a damn what you think about my 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, I did see his posts about you. He posts
stuff like that about almost everyone, IMO some
of it fairly valid, even though expressed in his often
too abrasive style.

Again see previous comment.

Which one, the incorrect one about me not reading
RF's posts about you?


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.

No, you see my previous comments about making
wrong presumptions.



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.

Why? What is it about what I wrote that you problem with it?
I will be happy to discuss specifics, if you would provide some,
or are you going to come up with some cutesy list that plays
on my name? :-)



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.

Nor did I expect it to.

Maybe mine will.

Best
Nag

LOL! I guess we all need dreams.

Cheers,
Russell

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: betting against global warning
    ... not the rude one. ... Global Warming models. ... posts" with anything but careful consideration. ... Sorry that you feel that way, Bob. ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: Time To Teach Digital Etiquette
    ... if RF Bob Ling does not know that the post was posted because ... But it is the posts of Reef Fish that shows the screaming, ... Long-time poster announces a Moderated group, ... Afonso was making the SAME NOISE against Jack Tomsky for ...
    (sci.stat.math)
  • =?Windows-1252?Q?Re:_Federer:_=93It_gave_me_so_much_confidence=2C_just_on?= =?Windows-1252?Q
    ... difference between Whisper and bob, ... bob's posts typically like this one, ever since bob engaged in a not ... goat) even after whisper correctly pointed that given choice everybody ... as an excuse and twist his replies to be sure that in case Fed won, ...
    (rec.sport.tennis)
  • Re: Diprotic Acid- Partial Neutralization Calculation
    ... Bob wrote: ... > I have at least browsed the posts so far. ... books but could not find a similiar solved problem. ... > for parsing h/h English. ...
    (sci.chem)
  • Re: Proposed Robert J. Kolker info pack
    ... The following recent posts by Mr Kolker should make it clear ... A new user who has received this FAQ after posting to Mr Kolker ... I'm not sure about this one, Bob is indeed an unusual case in that his ... science posts are, AFAICT, relevant, generally correct, and reasonably ...
    (talk.origins)