Child support - who needs it?

"Dave M" wrote in message
m...

I see - so you were debating an issue that no-one else was.... strange
form of debate... but OK. Have it your own way.

Yawn .. you're still here ... well as best as you can be. So it seems that
somebody else is involved.

I think not !!

Yes Shakespeare, I would agree that you think not.

Nice twist ! Shame the context in which is was written was lost.

Context?!?! You mean you're talking about context now?!?!? You're kidding,
right? Since when did that have anything to do with what you are saying.
Look at the first point that you tried to make above, then get back to me,
toots. You missed context a long time ago.

I would presume that you would be well acquainted with alternate
realities
... living in one will do that for you.

Going down hill now... No 'cleverness' in this one - its been used up
already !

You mean that many others have pointed out that you have been living in
alternate realities? Thanks for pointing that out.

Ah, bright star, you've been around usenet for a long time, haven't you?

A while.... pop in now and again.

Yes, I can tell. Guess that is why you use Google Posting. You technophile
you.

The number of "debates" that I have seen you guys take off topic is
enormous, yet when someone posts something that hits way too close to
home,
you squeal like a stuck pig. You're still funny.

Well - what can I say.... If I had seen any of your statements that
came within a mile of the issue being discussed by Andre - Let alone
close to home - I would not have felt the need to raise my initial
point.

What, the point that you are rallying to the battle flag of "Andre" ... hee
hee ... you are still funny.

The "debate" was on idiocy. You proved my point.

What - that you are an idiot ?
Fine - you win.

A shallow victory. And definitely, with such a worthy adversary as
yourself, one that really has no challenge at all. Keep trying to earn
your
spurs, sport, you're just providing amusement.

I know - its called 'idiot baiting'. They used to do it (baiting) with
bears and badgers (and still do in some places) - now we use Barbie's.

Boy, I didn't think the season was still running on you, but you proved me
wrong on that one.

You'll find dictionaries under the letter "d" ... that's the fourth
one
in
the alphabet (at least that way you won't have to take off your
other
glove
to get that high.

Barbie rule number 8854: when you've lost the plot - suggest that self
stimulation is the only form of satisfaction your opponent can muster.
(See also Barbie rule number 3321: Ridicule your opponent.)

I'm glad that you follow these rules in your own conduct, and are brave
enough to point it out to others. Btw, who was talking about self
stimulation ... oh let's see, that was you. I was talking about the
abilty
to count. It is a quality that idiots have a problem with, again
proving my
point, which would fall under your rule number 3321, Barbie.

Granted - I misunderstood your meaning - though it is a usual ploy.
Misunderstandings sometimes occur. Barbie rule still applies !

Well, you still have me chuckling ... you still are funny. But that is the
ridicule rule ...

You figured wrong. What would be pointless though - is debating with
someone who does not have the ability to debate nor the intelligence
to understand what debating is about.

You're right ... which was my point ... you have neither the intelligence
nor ability. I didn't know that I had to point everything out to you, but I
guess I needed to place editorial comments throughout the entire thing to
bring you along.


Keep up Sparky, keep up, you're missing the point. re-read it and see
if
you can catch it if it goes by slower.

No - second reading does not support your hypothesis. You cannot
discredit the subject without some sort of argument which PROVES you
right. Just because you say it is so - does not make you right. Just
because you have found a source which itself has no corroberation or
substansive facts on which to base your arguments - does not make the
original incorrect. It IS debatable.

Man, you're slower than even *I* thought. I'll ask some Socratic questions.
Which "subject" are you discussing Sparky? I'm discussing a previous one,
hence the references to googling and such. The "source" that was placed
forward was placed forward by your demi-god, Andre the great. (In fact, he
didn't even place the original research forward, but rather an article that
was purportedly based on the research. That link was what I disproved.)
The source that has no corroboration or substantive facts was placed forward
by *your* side. Rule number one, Barbie. When you find yourself in a hole,
stop digging. I know you'll learn that eventually.

Actually, the image that more fits your action was tripping over the
doorjam
as you tried to step in and falling on your face. You Ms.'d the point
of my
original comments, Ms.'d the points I made in your follow-up, Ms. read
key
sections and Ms. stated your opinions. Imagine that.

Nice one.... notice the how statements are a given - because it
supports just *your* viewpoint.

Sorry, "notice the how statements?" And isn't it supposed to be *my
viewpoint*, or are you debating somebody else.


Boy do you guys all fall into the same trap. If you've lost the battle,
criticise the spelling. You'll notice that I spell a lot of words
wrong. I
use 'hte' instead of 'the' and sometimes even use gassp, shock
horror -
oops, spelt 'gasp' wrong - use 'colour' instead of 'color.' I think
faster
than I type, and I am a Yank living overseas. Any normal moron would
just
move on on that, understanding what was meant. But you must be a
special
type of moron. What Barbie rule number is correcting spelling, Barbie?

Actually it is not your spelling - but your grammer which is at fault.
Nuff said !

That's funny. You mean, I miss-spell a word, and it is now a gramatical
problem. Pathetic. Can I hand you a bigger shovel?

Oh, and dumb-dumb, if you are going to criticize somebody's spelling,
make
sure you don't do it by having a spelling error in the criticisim. It
makes
you look really stupid. The word is per*s*nickety - there is an "s" in
there.

Depends whether you use English or American English actually. In case
you had not realised - there are a lot of differences in the way we
spell and say things. For example. Think of the way Americans use the
English word Nuclear - pronounced by Americans Nu-Que-Ler. Now I am
not sure how you spell it in America... but it MUST be different

Ah, it MUST be huh. Facts, cite, oh never mind. Never seen anybody ever
spell it as Knu-Clee-er, but I would figure that, having lost so much, we
are now debating differences between American English and British Englsh
because we pronounce it Nu-Clee-Er.
Not sure whether this is a good example in retrospect - but take it
from me - in English the S does not exist.
However in both grammers - the extra O does ! Because American grammer
is the same as English grammer - we use different words and spellings
- but the grammer is the same.
I am not so shallow as to worry about peoples spelling in UUSENET.
Like I said - I was just being pernickety - having fun.... Barbie
baiting !

Ah well, look up Webster. Also look up "grammer." You're still funny.

Boy, is this "we've won, run away" or what?

Neither.

Sport, it has got to be one or the other. It is either, A) "we've won, run
away or B) something else. Neither doesn't fit. But then again, I am
debating spelling and "grammer" with an anglophile.

Tell me Champ, you're not the new ove of Andre's life that he goes on
and on
about, are you? In my book, if you don't have anything to add, which
you
obviously don't, don't say anything. Yay, you are carrying the flag for
Andre. I know he needs all the help he can get, but you are really not
helping him, forget about youreself.

Was just attempting to let you understand that from other peoples
viewpoint - you were not debating the issue

Ah ... I see ... you have now taken on the mantle of representing the
people. Well, I do not claim to represent "other peoples," and I find it
funny when an individual claims to do such. Yes, I am sure that there are
some people who might claim the same, and I would take issue with them the
same way.

- as he was claiming to be
the case. Which many people will have agreed with.

Many? One? A Hundred? A Thousand? The majority of usenet? of the UK?
Another interesting point ... as soon as you've lost, try and rally others
to your defense. I'm now tiring of your stupidity. Unfortunately, so are a
ton of others, who will probably eventually request that I cease and desist,
because they tire reading me debate a moron.

I therefore had
something to add. Some people will have disagreed with my viewpoint -
I therefore had something to add to inspire them to join the debate.
Therefore - in YOUR book - YOU are wrong. Time to re-write your book I
think.

Well Sparky ... that paragraph, even when I read it before I inserted
comments, confused me. I have no idea what point you think you are making.

that you were UNABLE (and therefore unwilling) to debate the issues
raised.

Hang on a second, sport. Are you are or are you not debating? Would
you
make up your mind? You are obviously not debating because you are
supporting Andre's position, but you are debating because you are saying
I
am unable to debate. Would you stay on topic please ... it's almost as
bad
as arguing with a *woman,* though there I would get intelligent debate,
another area you fall flat on. Watch the door jam on the way out.
Wouldn't
want you to smack yourself on the back of the head. Don't worry, you
can
always call the police and file an abuse claim ... pathetic.

I think you need to go and lie down. You are obviously losing your
cool. Have a cup of tea and calm down.
Ok - settled. Have a hanky to wipe the tears and put your toys back in
the box.

Right .. non-responsive. If you can't debate the issue, make ridiculous
comments.

OK...

Right. I am not debating with you. I am educating you.

ROTFLMAO ... oh, that is what you were doing. I am all ears ...

Just because
you think something is so - does not make it correct.

Et tu, brutus, go back and revist your points about "YOU are wrong" and
stuff.

Just because
someone points out that what you believe to be the case, does not mean
it IS the case.

Are you arguing with yourself now? Boy, I guess I can excuse myself,
because you can continue to contradict yourself and contradict your
contradictions.

So you were arguing (not debating) with Andre over whether you were
actually able to debate the questions he raised.

Oh, I was? Actually, sport, my initial comment, which you jumped in on,
wasn't even directed *at* Andre. It was *about* Andre, but not at him.

You Ignored his
questions (which gave you the chance to debate the issue) and just
rambled on about insignificancies without so much as putting forward
your own responses and questions to his questions - therefore
preventing him from debating with you.

I've addressed this already. Re-read my previous post. Get back to me.

I just slipped in to suggest that your 'thoughts' that you WERE
debating the question - from an outsiders POV - were that you were
not.

I've address this too. Slipped is the correct action word, btw. And I am
glad you are an "outsider."

You then turned my disagreement with your opinion into a slanging
match in order to attemt to make me 'look' stupid

I don't think I need to "attempt." In fact, I think that you are able to do
the same all by your lonesome.

(As if even I care
what anonymous people think about my stupidity or otherwise). Fine in
some cases I did not put much thought into dealing with a couple of
the denigrations which you hurled at me. But that is not the issue.
The issue is that you are wrong - and you cannot accept it.

About what? Oh well, tiring. Hey sport, if I recall correctly. you hurled
the denigrations my way foist. I was just responding in kind. I am sure
you are a really nice likable guy. But if you are going to jump in on
somebody, a) be prepared for them to jump back, b) know the argument line
and c) listen and pay attention.

Oh, and your logic is all wrong. One can be unwilling to debate and
issue,
but not, unable. It is called lack of interest. And you have obviously
shown that even people that are UNABLE to debate an issue are definitely
not
unwilling double negative there spanky, know it is tough for you to
figure
it out, so I thought I would provide editorial comment (Ed. note - what
I am
saying is that YOU are unable to debate the topic, but you have
definitely
proved that despite your inability, you are still willing to try. A for
effort, but a failing grade for the project)

I have shown no such thing. I did not enter into the debate. Like I
keep saying - neither did you.

Wait a second, are we are are we not debating. Okay, you've confused me now
too.

Thanks for the amusement spanky. I've got to get back to work now, but
just
let me know if you want to come back and play in the sandbox.

Rambler

Appropriate pseudonym.

First sensible comment you made.

Rambler

"Dave M" wrote in message
m...

I see - so you were debating an issue that no-one else was.... strange
form of debate... but OK. Have it your own way.

Yawn .. you're still here ... well as best as you can be. So it seems that
somebody else is involved.

I think not !!

Yes Shakespeare, I would agree that you think not.

Nice twist ! Shame the context in which is was written was lost.

Context?!?! You mean you're talking about context now?!?!? You're kidding,
right? Since when did that have anything to do with what you are saying.
Look at the first point that you tried to make above, then get back to me,
toots. You missed context a long time ago.

I would presume that you would be well acquainted with alternate
realities
... living in one will do that for you.

Going down hill now... No 'cleverness' in this one - its been used up
already !

You mean that many others have pointed out that you have been living in
alternate realities? Thanks for pointing that out.

Ah, bright star, you've been around usenet for a long time, haven't you?

A while.... pop in now and again.

Yes, I can tell. Guess that is why you use Google Posting. You technophile
you.

The number of "debates" that I have seen you guys take off topic is
enormous, yet when someone posts something that hits way too close to
home,
you squeal like a stuck pig. You're still funny.

Well - what can I say.... If I had seen any of your statements that
came within a mile of the issue being discussed by Andre - Let alone
close to home - I would not have felt the need to raise my initial
point.

What, the point that you are rallying to the battle flag of "Andre" ... hee
hee ... you are still funny.

The "debate" was on idiocy. You proved my point.

What - that you are an idiot ?
Fine - you win.

A shallow victory. And definitely, with such a worthy adversary as
yourself, one that really has no challenge at all. Keep trying to earn
your
spurs, sport, you're just providing amusement.

I know - its called 'idiot baiting'. They used to do it (baiting) with
bears and badgers (and still do in some places) - now we use Barbie's.

Boy, I didn't think the season was still running on you, but you proved me
wrong on that one.

You'll find dictionaries under the letter "d" ... that's the fourth
one
in
the alphabet (at least that way you won't have to take off your
other
glove
to get that high.

Barbie rule number 8854: when you've lost the plot - suggest that self
stimulation is the only form of satisfaction your opponent can muster.
(See also Barbie rule number 3321: Ridicule your opponent.)

I'm glad that you follow these rules in your own conduct, and are brave
enough to point it out to others. Btw, who was talking about self
stimulation ... oh let's see, that was you. I was talking about the
abilty
to count. It is a quality that idiots have a problem with, again
proving my
point, which would fall under your rule number 3321, Barbie.

Granted - I misunderstood your meaning - though it is a usual ploy.
Misunderstandings sometimes occur. Barbie rule still applies !

Well, you still have me chuckling ... you still are funny. But that is the
ridicule rule ...

You figured wrong. What would be pointless though - is debating with
someone who does not have the ability to debate nor the intelligence
to understand what debating is about.

You're right ... which was my point ... you have neither the intelligence
nor ability. I didn't know that I had to point everything out to you, but I
guess I needed to place editorial comments throughout the entire thing to
bring you along.


Keep up Sparky, keep up, you're missing the point. re-read it and see
if
you can catch it if it goes by slower.

No - second reading does not support your hypothesis. You cannot
discredit the subject without some sort of argument which PROVES you
right. Just because you say it is so - does not make you right. Just
because you have found a source which itself has no corroberation or
substansive facts on which to base your arguments - does not make the
original incorrect. It IS debatable.

Man, you're slower than even *I* thought. I'll ask some Socratic questions.
Which "subject" are you discussing Sparky? I'm discussing a previous one,
hence the references to googling and such. The "source" that was placed
forward was placed forward by your demi-god, Andre the great. (In fact, he
didn't even place the original research forward, but rather an article that
was purportedly based on the research. That link was what I disproved.)
The source that has no corroboration or substantive facts was placed forward
by *your* side. Rule number one, Barbie. When you find yourself in a hole,
stop digging. I know you'll learn that eventually.

Actually, the image that more fits your action was tripping over the
doorjam
as you tried to step in and falling on your face. You Ms.'d the point
of my
original comments, Ms.'d the points I made in your follow-up, Ms. read
key
sections and Ms. stated your opinions. Imagine that.

Nice one.... notice the how statements are a given - because it
supports just *your* viewpoint.

Sorry, "notice the how statements?" And isn't it supposed to be *my
viewpoint*, or are you debating somebody else.


Boy do you guys all fall into the same trap. If you've lost the battle,
criticise the spelling. You'll notice that I spell a lot of words
wrong. I
use 'hte' instead of 'the' and sometimes even use gassp, shock
horror -
oops, spelt 'gasp' wrong - use 'colour' instead of 'color.' I think
faster
than I type, and I am a Yank living overseas. Any normal moron would
just
move on on that, understanding what was meant. But you must be a
special
type of moron. What Barbie rule number is correcting spelling, Barbie?

Actually it is not your spelling - but your grammer which is at fault.
Nuff said !

That's funny. You mean, I miss-spell a word, and it is now a gramatical
problem. Pathetic. Can I hand you a bigger shovel?

Oh, and dumb-dumb, if you are going to criticize somebody's spelling,
make
sure you don't do it by having a spelling error in the criticisim. It
makes
you look really stupid. The word is per*s*nickety - there is an "s" in
there.

Depends whether you use English or American English actually. In case
you had not realised - there are a lot of differences in the way we
spell and say things. For example. Think of the way Americans use the
English word Nuclear - pronounced by Americans Nu-Que-Ler. Now I am
not sure how you spell it in America... but it MUST be different

Ah, it MUST be huh. Facts, cite, oh never mind. Never seen anybody ever
spell it as Knu-Clee-er, but I would figure that, having lost so much, we
are now debating differences between American English and British Englsh
because we pronounce it Nu-Clee-Er.
Not sure whether this is a good example in retrospect - but take it
from me - in English the S does not exist.
However in both grammers - the extra O does ! Because American grammer
is the same as English grammer - we use different words and spellings
- but the grammer is the same.
I am not so shallow as to worry about peoples spelling in UUSENET.
Like I said - I was just being pernickety - having fun.... Barbie
baiting !

Ah well, look up Webster. Also look up "grammer." You're still funny.

Boy, is this "we've won, run away" or what?

Neither.

Sport, it has got to be one or the other. It is either, A) "we've won, run
away or B) something else. Neither doesn't fit. But then again, I am
debating spelling and "grammer" with an anglophile.

Tell me Champ, you're not the new ove of Andre's life that he goes on
and on
about, are you? In my book, if you don't have anything to add, which
you
obviously don't, don't say anything. Yay, you are carrying the flag for
Andre. I know he needs all the help he can get, but you are really not
helping him, forget about youreself.

Was just attempting to let you understand that from other peoples
viewpoint - you were not debating the issue

Ah ... I see ... you have now taken on the mantle of representing the
people. Well, I do not claim to represent "other peoples," and I find it
funny when an individual claims to do such. Yes, I am sure that there are
some people who might claim the same, and I would take issue with them the
same way.

- as he was claiming to be
the case. Which many people will have agreed with.

Many? One? A Hundred? A Thousand? The majority of usenet? of the UK?
Another interesting point ... as soon as you've lost, try and rally others
to your defense. I'm now tiring of your stupidity. Unfortunately, so are a
ton of others, who will probably eventually request that I cease and desist,
because they tire reading me debate a moron.

I therefore had
something to add. Some people will have disagreed with my viewpoint -
I therefore had something to add to inspire them to join the debate.
Therefore - in YOUR book - YOU are wrong. Time to re-write your book I
think.

Well Sparky ... that paragraph, even when I read it before I inserted
comments, confused me. I have no idea what point you think you are making.

that you were UNABLE (and therefore unwilling) to debate the issues
raised.

Hang on a second, sport. Are you are or are you not debating? Would
you
make up your mind? You are obviously not debating because you are
supporting Andre's position, but you are debating because you are saying
I
am unable to debate. Would you stay on topic please ... it's almost as
bad
as arguing with a *woman,* though there I would get intelligent debate,
another area you fall flat on. Watch the door jam on the way out.
Wouldn't
want you to smack yourself on the back of the head. Don't worry, you
can
always call the police and file an abuse claim ... pathetic.

I think you need to go and lie down. You are obviously losing your
cool. Have a cup of tea and calm down.
Ok - settled. Have a hanky to wipe the tears and put your toys back in
the box.

Right .. non-responsive. If you can't debate the issue, make ridiculous
comments.

OK...

Right. I am not debating with you. I am educating you.

ROTFLMAO ... oh, that is what you were doing. I am all ears ...

Just because
you think something is so - does not make it correct.

Et tu, brutus, go back and revist your points about "YOU are wrong" and
stuff.

Just because
someone points out that what you believe to be the case, does not mean
it IS the case.

Are you arguing with yourself now? Boy, I guess I can excuse myself,
because you can continue to contradict yourself and contradict your
contradictions.

So you were arguing (not debating) with Andre over whether you were
actually able to debate the questions he raised.

Oh, I was? Actually, sport, my initial comment, which you jumped in on,
wasn't even directed *at* Andre. It was *about* Andre, but not at him.

You Ignored his
questions (which gave you the chance to debate the issue) and just
rambled on about insignificancies without so much as putting forward
your own responses and questions to his questions - therefore
preventing him from debating with you.

I've addressed this already. Re-read my previous post. Get back to me.

I just slipped in to suggest that your 'thoughts' that you WERE
debating the question - from an outsiders POV - were that you were
not.

I've address this too. Slipped is the correct action word, btw. And I am
glad you are an "outsider."

You then turned my disagreement with your opinion into a slanging
match in order to attemt to make me 'look' stupid

I don't think I need to "attempt." In fact, I think that you are able to do
the same all by your lonesome.

(As if even I care
what anonymous people think about my stupidity or otherwise). Fine in
some cases I did not put much thought into dealing with a couple of
the denigrations which you hurled at me. But that is not the issue.
The issue is that you are wrong - and you cannot accept it.

About what? Oh well, tiring. Hey sport, if I recall correctly. you hurled
the denigrations my way foist. I was just responding in kind. I am sure
you are a really nice likable guy. But if you are going to jump in on
somebody, a) be prepared for them to jump back, b) know the argument line
and c) listen and pay attention.

Oh, and your logic is all wrong. One can be unwilling to debate and
issue,
but not, unable. It is called lack of interest. And you have obviously
shown that even people that are UNABLE to debate an issue are definitely
not
unwilling double negative there spanky, know it is tough for you to
figure
it out, so I thought I would provide editorial comment (Ed. note - what
I am
saying is that YOU are unable to debate the topic, but you have
definitely
proved that despite your inability, you are still willing to try. A for
effort, but a failing grade for the project)

I have shown no such thing. I did not enter into the debate. Like I
keep saying - neither did you.

Wait a second, are we are are we not debating. Okay, you've confused me now
too.

Thanks for the amusement spanky. I've got to get back to work now, but
just
let me know if you want to come back and play in the sandbox.

Rambler

Appropriate pseudonym.

First sensible comment you made.

Rambler

"Dave M" wrote in message
m...

I see - so you were debating an issue that no-one else was.... strange
form of debate... but OK. Have it your own way.

Yawn .. you're still here ... well as best as you can be. So it seems that
somebody else is involved.

I think not !!

Yes Shakespeare, I would agree that you think not.

Nice twist ! Shame the context in which is was written was lost.

Context?!?! You mean you're talking about context now?!?!? You're kidding,
right? Since when did that have anything to do with what you are saying.
Look at the first point that you tried to make above, then get back to me,
toots. You missed context a long time ago.

I would presume that you would be well acquainted with alternate
realities
... living in one will do that for you.

Going down hill now... No 'cleverness' in this one - its been used up
already !

You mean that many others have pointed out that you have been living in
alternate realities? Thanks for pointing that out.

Ah, bright star, you've been around usenet for a long time, haven't you?

A while.... pop in now and again.

Yes, I can tell. Guess that is why you use Google Posting. You technophile
you.

The number of "debates" that I have seen you guys take off topic is
enormous, yet when someone posts something that hits way too close to
home,
you squeal like a stuck pig. You're still funny.

Well - what can I say.... If I had seen any of your statements that
came within a mile of the issue being discussed by Andre - Let alone
close to home - I would not have felt the need to raise my initial
point.

What, the point that you are rallying to the battle flag of "Andre" ... hee
hee ... you are still funny.

The "debate" was on idiocy. You proved my point.

What - that you are an idiot ?
Fine - you win.

A shallow victory. And definitely, with such a worthy adversary as
yourself, one that really has no challenge at all. Keep trying to earn
your
spurs, sport, you're just providing amusement.

I know - its called 'idiot baiting'. They used to do it (baiting) with
bears and badgers (and still do in some places) - now we use Barbie's.

Boy, I didn't think the season was still running on you, but you proved me
wrong on that one.

You'll find dictionaries under the letter "d" ... that's the fourth
one
in
the alphabet (at least that way you won't have to take off your
other
glove
to get that high.

Barbie rule number 8854: when you've lost the plot - suggest that self
stimulation is the only form of satisfaction your opponent can muster.
(See also Barbie rule number 3321: Ridicule your opponent.)

I'm glad that you follow these rules in your own conduct, and are brave
enough to point it out to others. Btw, who was talking about self
stimulation ... oh let's see, that was you. I was talking about the
abilty
to count. It is a quality that idiots have a problem with, again
proving my
point, which would fall under your rule number 3321, Barbie.

Granted - I misunderstood your meaning - though it is a usual ploy.
Misunderstandings sometimes occur. Barbie rule still applies !

Well, you still have me chuckling ... you still are funny. But that is the
ridicule rule ...

You figured wrong. What would be pointless though - is debating with
someone who does not have the ability to debate nor the intelligence
to understand what debating is about.

You're right ... which was my point ... you have neither the intelligence
nor ability. I didn't know that I had to point everything out to you, but I
guess I needed to place editorial comments throughout the entire thing to
bring you along.


Keep up Sparky, keep up, you're missing the point. re-read it and see
if
you can catch it if it goes by slower.

No - second reading does not support your hypothesis. You cannot
discredit the subject without some sort of argument which PROVES you
right. Just because you say it is so - does not make you right. Just
because you have found a source which itself has no corroberation or
substansive facts on which to base your arguments - does not make the
original incorrect. It IS debatable.

Man, you're slower than even *I* thought. I'll ask some Socratic questions.
Which "subject" are you discussing Sparky? I'm discussing a previous one,
hence the references to googling and such. The "source" that was placed
forward was placed forward by your demi-god, Andre the great. (In fact, he
didn't even place the original research forward, but rather an article that
was purportedly based on the research. That link was what I disproved.)
The source that has no corroboration or substantive facts was placed forward
by *your* side. Rule number one, Barbie. When you find yourself in a hole,
stop digging. I know you'll learn that eventually.

Actually, the image that more fits your action was tripping over the
doorjam
as you tried to step in and falling on your face. You Ms.'d the point
of my
original comments, Ms.'d the points I made in your follow-up, Ms. read
key
sections and Ms. stated your opinions. Imagine that.

Nice one.... notice the how statements are a given - because it
supports just *your* viewpoint.

Sorry, "notice the how statements?" And isn't it supposed to be *my
viewpoint*, or are you debating somebody else.


Boy do you guys all fall into the same trap. If you've lost the battle,
criticise the spelling. You'll notice that I spell a lot of words
wrong. I
use 'hte' instead of 'the' and sometimes even use gassp, shock
horror -
oops, spelt 'gasp' wrong - use 'colour' instead of 'color.' I think
faster
than I type, and I am a Yank living overseas. Any normal moron would
just
move on on that, understanding what was meant. But you must be a
special
type of moron. What Barbie rule number is correcting spelling, Barbie?

Actually it is not your spelling - but your grammer which is at fault.
Nuff said !

That's funny. You mean, I miss-spell a word, and it is now a gramatical
problem. Pathetic. Can I hand you a bigger shovel?

Oh, and dumb-dumb, if you are going to criticize somebody's spelling,
make
sure you don't do it by having a spelling error in the criticisim. It
makes
you look really stupid. The word is per*s*nickety - there is an "s" in
there.

Depends whether you use English or American English actually. In case
you had not realised - there are a lot of differences in the way we
spell and say things. For example. Think of the way Americans use the
English word Nuclear - pronounced by Americans Nu-Que-Ler. Now I am
not sure how you spell it in America... but it MUST be different

Ah, it MUST be huh. Facts, cite, oh never mind. Never seen anybody ever
spell it as Knu-Clee-er, but I would figure that, having lost so much, we
are now debating differences between American English and British Englsh
because we pronounce it Nu-Clee-Er.
Not sure whether this is a good example in retrospect - but take it
from me - in English the S does not exist.
However in both grammers - the extra O does ! Because American grammer
is the same as English grammer - we use different words and spellings
- but the grammer is the same.
I am not so shallow as to worry about peoples spelling in UUSENET.
Like I said - I was just being pernickety - having fun.... Barbie
baiting !

Ah well, look up Webster. Also look up "grammer." You're still funny.

Boy, is this "we've won, run away" or what?

Neither.

Sport, it has got to be one or the other. It is either, A) "we've won, run
away or B) something else. Neither doesn't fit. But then again, I am
debating spelling and "grammer" with an anglophile.

Tell me Champ, you're not the new ove of Andre's life that he goes on
and on
about, are you? In my book, if you don't have anything to add, which
you
obviously don't, don't say anything. Yay, you are carrying the flag for
Andre. I know he needs all the help he can get, but you are really not
helping him, forget about youreself.

Was just attempting to let you understand that from other peoples
viewpoint - you were not debating the issue

Ah ... I see ... you have now taken on the mantle of representing the
people. Well, I do not claim to represent "other peoples," and I find it
funny when an individual claims to do such. Yes, I am sure that there are
some people who might claim the same, and I would take issue with them the
same way.

- as he was claiming to be
the case. Which many people will have agreed with.

Many? One? A Hundred? A Thousand? The majority of usenet? of the UK?
Another interesting point ... as soon as you've lost, try and rally others
to your defense. I'm now tiring of your stupidity. Unfortunately, so are a
ton of others, who will probably eventually request that I cease and desist,
because they tire reading me debate a moron.

I therefore had
something to add. Some people will have disagreed with my viewpoint -
I therefore had something to add to inspire them to join the debate.
Therefore - in YOUR book - YOU are wrong. Time to re-write your book I
think.

Well Sparky ... that paragraph, even when I read it before I inserted
comments, confused me. I have no idea what point you think you are making.

that you were UNABLE (and therefore unwilling) to debate the issues
raised.

Hang on a second, sport. Are you are or are you not debating? Would
you
make up your mind? You are obviously not debating because you are
supporting Andre's position, but you are debating because you are saying
I
am unable to debate. Would you stay on topic please ... it's almost as
bad
as arguing with a *woman,* though there I would get intelligent debate,
another area you fall flat on. Watch the door jam on the way out.
Wouldn't
want you to smack yourself on the back of the head. Don't worry, you
can
always call the police and file an abuse claim ... pathetic.

I think you need to go and lie down. You are obviously losing your
cool. Have a cup of tea and calm down.
Ok - settled. Have a hanky to wipe the tears and put your toys back in
the box.

Right .. non-responsive. If you can't debate the issue, make ridiculous
comments.

OK...

Right. I am not debating with you. I am educating you.

ROTFLMAO ... oh, that is what you were doing. I am all ears ...

Just because
you think something is so - does not make it correct.

Et tu, brutus, go back and revist your points about "YOU are wrong" and
stuff.

Just because
someone points out that what you believe to be the case, does not mean
it IS the case.

Are you arguing with yourself now? Boy, I guess I can excuse myself,
because you can continue to contradict yourself and contradict your
contradictions.

So you were arguing (not debating) with Andre over whether you were
actually able to debate the questions he raised.

Oh, I was? Actually, sport, my initial comment, which you jumped in on,
wasn't even directed *at* Andre. It was *about* Andre, but not at him.

You Ignored his
questions (which gave you the chance to debate the issue) and just
rambled on about insignificancies without so much as putting forward
your own responses and questions to his questions - therefore
preventing him from debating with you.

I've addressed this already. Re-read my previous post. Get back to me.

I just slipped in to suggest that your 'thoughts' that you WERE
debating the question - from an outsiders POV - were that you were
not.

I've address this too. Slipped is the correct action word, btw. And I am
glad you are an "outsider."

You then turned my disagreement with your opinion into a slanging
match in order to attemt to make me 'look' stupid

I don't think I need to "attempt." In fact, I think that you are able to do
the same all by your lonesome.

(As if even I care
what anonymous people think about my stupidity or otherwise). Fine in
some cases I did not put much thought into dealing with a couple of
the denigrations which you hurled at me. But that is not the issue.
The issue is that you are wrong - and you cannot accept it.

About what? Oh well, tiring. Hey sport, if I recall correctly. you hurled
the denigrations my way foist. I was just responding in kind. I am sure
you are a really nice likable guy. But if you are going to jump in on
somebody, a) be prepared for them to jump back, b) know the argument line
and c) listen and pay attention.

Oh, and your logic is all wrong. One can be unwilling to debate and
issue,
but not, unable. It is called lack of interest. And you have obviously
shown that even people that are UNABLE to debate an issue are definitely
not
unwilling double negative there spanky, know it is tough for you to
figure
it out, so I thought I would provide editorial comment (Ed. note - what
I am
saying is that YOU are unable to debate the topic, but you have
definitely
proved that despite your inability, you are still willing to try. A for
effort, but a failing grade for the project)

I have shown no such thing. I did not enter into the debate. Like I
keep saying - neither did you.

Wait a second, are we are are we not debating. Okay, you've confused me now
too.

Thanks for the amusement spanky. I've got to get back to work now, but
just
let me know if you want to come back and play in the sandbox.

Rambler

Appropriate pseudonym.

First sensible comment you made.

Rambler

"Rambler" iamrambler at yahoo dot com wrote in message ...
"Dave M" wrote in message
m...

I see - so you were debating an issue that no-one else was.... strange
form of debate... but OK. Have it your own way.

Yawn .. you're still here ... well as best as you can be. So it seems that
somebody else is involved.

I think not !!

Yes Shakespeare, I would agree that you think not.

Nice twist ! Shame the context in which is was written was lost.

Context?!?! You mean you're talking about context now?!?!? You're kidding,
right? Since when did that have anything to do with what you are saying.
Look at the first point that you tried to make above, then get back to me,
toots. You missed context a long time ago.

I would presume that you would be well acquainted with alternate
realities
... living in one will do that for you.

Going down hill now... No 'cleverness' in this one - its been used up
already !

You mean that many others have pointed out that you have been living in
alternate realities? Thanks for pointing that out.

Ah, bright star, you've been around usenet for a long time, haven't you?

A while.... pop in now and again.

Yes, I can tell. Guess that is why you use Google Posting. You technophile
you.

The number of "debates" that I have seen you guys take off topic is
enormous, yet when someone posts something that hits way too close to
home,
you squeal like a stuck pig. You're still funny.

Well - what can I say.... If I had seen any of your statements that
came within a mile of the issue being discussed by Andre - Let alone
close to home - I would not have felt the need to raise my initial
point.

What, the point that you are rallying to the battle flag of "Andre" ... hee
hee ... you are still funny.

The "debate" was on idiocy. You proved my point.

What - that you are an idiot ?
Fine - you win.

A shallow victory. And definitely, with such a worthy adversary as
yourself, one that really has no challenge at all. Keep trying to earn
your
spurs, sport, you're just providing amusement.

I know - its called 'idiot baiting'. They used to do it (baiting) with
bears and badgers (and still do in some places) - now we use Barbie's.

Boy, I didn't think the season was still running on you, but you proved me
wrong on that one.

You'll find dictionaries under the letter "d" ... that's the fourth
one
in
the alphabet (at least that way you won't have to take off your
other
glove
to get that high.

Barbie rule number 8854: when you've lost the plot - suggest that self
stimulation is the only form of satisfaction your opponent can muster.
(See also Barbie rule number 3321: Ridicule your opponent.)

I'm glad that you follow these rules in your own conduct, and are brave
enough to point it out to others. Btw, who was talking about self
stimulation ... oh let's see, that was you. I was talking about the
abilty
to count. It is a quality that idiots have a problem with, again
proving my
point, which would fall under your rule number 3321, Barbie.

Granted - I misunderstood your meaning - though it is a usual ploy.
Misunderstandings sometimes occur. Barbie rule still applies !

Well, you still have me chuckling ... you still are funny. But that is the
ridicule rule ...

You figured wrong. What would be pointless though - is debating with
someone who does not have the ability to debate nor the intelligence
to understand what debating is about.

You're right ... which was my point ... you have neither the intelligence
nor ability. I didn't know that I had to point everything out to you, but I
guess I needed to place editorial comments throughout the entire thing to
bring you along.


Keep up Sparky, keep up, you're missing the point. re-read it and see
if
you can catch it if it goes by slower.

No - second reading does not support your hypothesis. You cannot
discredit the subject without some sort of argument which PROVES you
right. Just because you say it is so - does not make you right. Just
because you have found a source which itself has no corroberation or
substansive facts on which to base your arguments - does not make the
original incorrect. It IS debatable.

Man, you're slower than even *I* thought. I'll ask some Socratic questions.
Which "subject" are you discussing Sparky? I'm discussing a previous one,
hence the references to googling and such. The "source" that was placed
forward was placed forward by your demi-god, Andre the great. (In fact, he
didn't even place the original research forward, but rather an article that
was purportedly based on the research. That link was what I disproved.)
The source that has no corroboration or substantive facts was placed forward
by *your* side. Rule number one, Barbie. When you find yourself in a hole,
stop digging. I know you'll learn that eventually.

Actually, the image that more fits your action was tripping over the
doorjam
as you tried to step in and falling on your face. You Ms.'d the point
of my
original comments, Ms.'d the points I made in your follow-up, Ms. read
key
sections and Ms. stated your opinions. Imagine that.

Nice one.... notice the how statements are a given - because it
supports just *your* viewpoint.

Sorry, "notice the how statements?" And isn't it supposed to be *my
viewpoint*, or are you debating somebody else.


Boy do you guys all fall into the same trap. If you've lost the battle,
criticise the spelling. You'll notice that I spell a lot of words
wrong. I
use 'hte' instead of 'the' and sometimes even use gassp, shock
horror -
oops, spelt 'gasp' wrong - use 'colour' instead of 'color.' I think
faster
than I type, and I am a Yank living overseas. Any normal moron would
just
move on on that, understanding what was meant. But you must be a
special
type of moron. What Barbie rule number is correcting spelling, Barbie?

Actually it is not your spelling - but your grammer which is at fault.
Nuff said !

That's funny. You mean, I miss-spell a word, and it is now a gramatical
problem. Pathetic. Can I hand you a bigger shovel?

Oh, and dumb-dumb, if you are going to criticize somebody's spelling,
make
sure you don't do it by having a spelling error in the criticisim. It
makes
you look really stupid. The word is per*s*nickety - there is an "s" in
there.

Depends whether you use English or American English actually. In case
you had not realised - there are a lot of differences in the way we
spell and say things. For example. Think of the way Americans use the
English word Nuclear - pronounced by Americans Nu-Que-Ler. Now I am
not sure how you spell it in America... but it MUST be different

Ah, it MUST be huh. Facts, cite, oh never mind. Never seen anybody ever
spell it as Knu-Clee-er, but I would figure that, having lost so much, we
are now debating differences between American English and British Englsh
because we pronounce it Nu-Clee-Er.
Not sure whether this is a good example in retrospect - but take it
from me - in English the S does not exist.
However in both grammers - the extra O does ! Because American grammer
is the same as English grammer - we use different words and spellings
- but the grammer is the same.
I am not so shallow as to worry about peoples spelling in UUSENET.
Like I said - I was just being pernickety - having fun.... Barbie
baiting !

Ah well, look up Webster. Also look up "grammer." You're still funny.

Boy, is this "we've won, run away" or what?

Neither.

Sport, it has got to be one or the other. It is either, A) "we've won, run
away or B) something else. Neither doesn't fit. But then again, I am
debating spelling and "grammer" with an anglophile.

Tell me Champ, you're not the new ove of Andre's life that he goes on
and on
about, are you? In my book, if you don't have anything to add, which
you
obviously don't, don't say anything. Yay, you are carrying the flag for
Andre. I know he needs all the help he can get, but you are really not
helping him, forget about youreself.

Was just attempting to let you understand that from other peoples
viewpoint - you were not debating the issue

Ah ... I see ... you have now taken on the mantle of representing the
people. Well, I do not claim to represent "other peoples," and I find it
funny when an individual claims to do such. Yes, I am sure that there are
some people who might claim the same, and I would take issue with them the
same way.

- as he was claiming to be
the case. Which many people will have agreed with.

Many? One? A Hundred? A Thousand? The majority of usenet? of the UK?
Another interesting point ... as soon as you've lost, try and rally others
to your defense. I'm now tiring of your stupidity. Unfortunately, so are a
ton of others, who will probably eventually request that I cease and desist,
because they tire reading me debate a moron.

I therefore had
something to add. Some people will have disagreed with my viewpoint -
I therefore had something to add to inspire them to join the debate.
Therefore - in YOUR book - YOU are wrong. Time to re-write your book I
think.

Well Sparky ... that paragraph, even when I read it before I inserted
comments, confused me. I have no idea what point you think you are making.

that you were UNABLE (and therefore unwilling) to debate the issues
raised.

Hang on a second, sport. Are you are or are you not debating? Would
you
make up your mind? You are obviously not debating because you are
supporting Andre's position, but you are debating because you are saying
I
am unable to debate. Would you stay on topic please ... it's almost as
bad
as arguing with a *woman,* though there I would get intelligent debate,
another area you fall flat on. Watch the door jam on the way out.
Wouldn't
want you to smack yourself on the back of the head. Don't worry, you
can
always call the police and file an abuse claim ... pathetic.

I think you need to go and lie down. You are obviously losing your
cool. Have a cup of tea and calm down.
Ok - settled. Have a hanky to wipe the tears and put your toys back in
the box.

Right .. non-responsive. If you can't debate the issue, make ridiculous
comments.

OK...

Right. I am not debating with you. I am educating you.

ROTFLMAO ... oh, that is what you were doing. I am all ears ...

Just because
you think something is so - does not make it correct.

Et tu, brutus, go back and revist your points about "YOU are wrong" and
stuff.

Just because
someone points out that what you believe to be the case, does not mean
it IS the case.

Are you arguing with yourself now? Boy, I guess I can excuse myself,
because you can continue to contradict yourself and contradict your
contradictions.

So you were arguing (not debating) with Andre over whether you were
actually able to debate the questions he raised.

Oh, I was? Actually, sport, my initial comment, which you jumped in on,
wasn't even directed *at* Andre. It was *about* Andre, but not at him.

You Ignored his
questions (which gave you the chance to debate the issue) and just
rambled on about insignificancies without so much as putting forward
your own responses and questions to his questions - therefore
preventing him from debating with you.

I've addressed this already. Re-read my previous post. Get back to me.

I just slipped in to suggest that your 'thoughts' that you WERE
debating the question - from an outsiders POV - were that you were
not.

I've address this too. Slipped is the correct action word, btw. And I am
glad you are an "outsider."

You then turned my disagreement with your opinion into a slanging
match in order to attemt to make me 'look' stupid

I don't think I need to "attempt." In fact, I think that you are able to do
the same all by your lonesome.

(As if even I care
what anonymous people think about my stupidity or otherwise). Fine in
some cases I did not put much thought into dealing with a couple of
the denigrations which you hurled at me. But that is not the issue.
The issue is that you are wrong - and you cannot accept it.

About what? Oh well, tiring. Hey sport, if I recall correctly. you hurled
the denigrations my way foist. I was just responding in kind. I am sure
you are a really nice likable guy. But if you are going to jump in on
somebody, a) be prepared for them to jump back, b) know the argument line
and c) listen and pay attention.

Oh, and your logic is all wrong. One can be unwilling to debate and
issue,
but not, unable. It is called lack of interest. And you have obviously
shown that even people that are UNABLE to debate an issue are definitely
not
unwilling double negative there spanky, know it is tough for you to
figure
it out, so I thought I would provide editorial comment (Ed. note - what
I am
saying is that YOU are unable to debate the topic, but you have
definitely
proved that despite your inability, you are still willing to try. A for
effort, but a failing grade for the project)

I have shown no such thing. I did not enter into the debate. Like I
keep saying - neither did you.

Wait a second, are we are are we not debating. Okay, you've confused me now
too.

Thanks for the amusement spanky. I've got to get back to work now, but
just
let me know if you want to come back and play in the sandbox.

Rambler

Appropriate pseudonym.

First sensible comment you made.

Rambler

I thinks rambler here has miss the hole point.
give up dave m.

"Rambler" iamrambler at yahoo dot com wrote in message ...
"Dave M" wrote in message
m...

I see - so you were debating an issue that no-one else was.... strange
form of debate... but OK. Have it your own way.

Yawn .. you're still here ... well as best as you can be. So it seems that
somebody else is involved.

I think not !!

Yes Shakespeare, I would agree that you think not.

Nice twist ! Shame the context in which is was written was lost.

Context?!?! You mean you're talking about context now?!?!? You're kidding,
right? Since when did that have anything to do with what you are saying.
Look at the first point that you tried to make above, then get back to me,
toots. You missed context a long time ago.

I would presume that you would be well acquainted with alternate
realities
... living in one will do that for you.

Going down hill now... No 'cleverness' in this one - its been used up
already !

You mean that many others have pointed out that you have been living in
alternate realities? Thanks for pointing that out.

Ah, bright star, you've been around usenet for a long time, haven't you?

A while.... pop in now and again.

Yes, I can tell. Guess that is why you use Google Posting. You technophile
you.

The number of "debates" that I have seen you guys take off topic is
enormous, yet when someone posts something that hits way too close to
home,
you squeal like a stuck pig. You're still funny.

Well - what can I say.... If I had seen any of your statements that
came within a mile of the issue being discussed by Andre - Let alone
close to home - I would not have felt the need to raise my initial
point.

What, the point that you are rallying to the battle flag of "Andre" ... hee
hee ... you are still funny.

The "debate" was on idiocy. You proved my point.

What - that you are an idiot ?
Fine - you win.

A shallow victory. And definitely, with such a worthy adversary as
yourself, one that really has no challenge at all. Keep trying to earn
your
spurs, sport, you're just providing amusement.

I know - its called 'idiot baiting'. They used to do it (baiting) with
bears and badgers (and still do in some places) - now we use Barbie's.

Boy, I didn't think the season was still running on you, but you proved me
wrong on that one.

You'll find dictionaries under the letter "d" ... that's the fourth
one
in
the alphabet (at least that way you won't have to take off your
other
glove
to get that high.

Barbie rule number 8854: when you've lost the plot - suggest that self
stimulation is the only form of satisfaction your opponent can muster.
(See also Barbie rule number 3321: Ridicule your opponent.)

I'm glad that you follow these rules in your own conduct, and are brave
enough to point it out to others. Btw, who was talking about self
stimulation ... oh let's see, that was you. I was talking about the
abilty
to count. It is a quality that idiots have a problem with, again
proving my
point, which would fall under your rule number 3321, Barbie.

Granted - I misunderstood your meaning - though it is a usual ploy.
Misunderstandings sometimes occur. Barbie rule still applies !

Well, you still have me chuckling ... you still are funny. But that is the
ridicule rule ...

You figured wrong. What would be pointless though - is debating with
someone who does not have the ability to debate nor the intelligence
to understand what debating is about.

You're right ... which was my point ... you have neither the intelligence
nor ability. I didn't know that I had to point everything out to you, but I
guess I needed to place editorial comments throughout the entire thing to
bring you along.


Keep up Sparky, keep up, you're missing the point. re-read it and see
if
you can catch it if it goes by slower.

No - second reading does not support your hypothesis. You cannot
discredit the subject without some sort of argument which PROVES you
right. Just because you say it is so - does not make you right. Just
because you have found a source which itself has no corroberation or
substansive facts on which to base your arguments - does not make the
original incorrect. It IS debatable.

Man, you're slower than even *I* thought. I'll ask some Socratic questions.
Which "subject" are you discussing Sparky? I'm discussing a previous one,
hence the references to googling and such. The "source" that was placed
forward was placed forward by your demi-god, Andre the great. (In fact, he
didn't even place the original research forward, but rather an article that
was purportedly based on the research. That link was what I disproved.)
The source that has no corroboration or substantive facts was placed forward
by *your* side. Rule number one, Barbie. When you find yourself in a hole,
stop digging. I know you'll learn that eventually.

Actually, the image that more fits your action was tripping over the
doorjam
as you tried to step in and falling on your face. You Ms.'d the point
of my
original comments, Ms.'d the points I made in your follow-up, Ms. read
key
sections and Ms. stated your opinions. Imagine that.

Nice one.... notice the how statements are a given - because it
supports just *your* viewpoint.

Sorry, "notice the how statements?" And isn't it supposed to be *my
viewpoint*, or are you debating somebody else.


Boy do you guys all fall into the same trap. If you've lost the battle,
criticise the spelling. You'll notice that I spell a lot of words
wrong. I
use 'hte' instead of 'the' and sometimes even use gassp, shock
horror -
oops, spelt 'gasp' wrong - use 'colour' instead of 'color.' I think
faster
than I type, and I am a Yank living overseas. Any normal moron would
just
move on on that, understanding what was meant. But you must be a
special
type of moron. What Barbie rule number is correcting spelling, Barbie?

Actually it is not your spelling - but your grammer which is at fault.
Nuff said !

That's funny. You mean, I miss-spell a word, and it is now a gramatical
problem. Pathetic. Can I hand you a bigger shovel?

Oh, and dumb-dumb, if you are going to criticize somebody's spelling,
make
sure you don't do it by having a spelling error in the criticisim. It
makes
you look really stupid. The word is per*s*nickety - there is an "s" in
there.

Depends whether you use English or American English actually. In case
you had not realised - there are a lot of differences in the way we
spell and say things. For example. Think of the way Americans use the
English word Nuclear - pronounced by Americans Nu-Que-Ler. Now I am
not sure how you spell it in America... but it MUST be different

Ah, it MUST be huh. Facts, cite, oh never mind. Never seen anybody ever
spell it as Knu-Clee-er, but I would figure that, having lost so much, we
are now debating differences between American English and British Englsh
because we pronounce it Nu-Clee-Er.
Not sure whether this is a good example in retrospect - but take it
from me - in English the S does not exist.
However in both grammers - the extra O does ! Because American grammer
is the same as English grammer - we use different words and spellings
- but the grammer is the same.
I am not so shallow as to worry about peoples spelling in UUSENET.
Like I said - I was just being pernickety - having fun.... Barbie
baiting !

Ah well, look up Webster. Also look up "grammer." You're still funny.

Boy, is this "we've won, run away" or what?

Neither.

Sport, it has got to be one or the other. It is either, A) "we've won, run
away or B) something else. Neither doesn't fit. But then again, I am
debating spelling and "grammer" with an anglophile.

Tell me Champ, you're not the new ove of Andre's life that he goes on
and on
about, are you? In my book, if you don't have anything to add, which
you
obviously don't, don't say anything. Yay, you are carrying the flag for
Andre. I know he needs all the help he can get, but you are really not
helping him, forget about youreself.

Was just attempting to let you understand that from other peoples
viewpoint - you were not debating the issue

Ah ... I see ... you have now taken on the mantle of representing the
people. Well, I do not claim to represent "other peoples," and I find it
funny when an individual claims to do such. Yes, I am sure that there are
some people who might claim the same, and I would take issue with them the
same way.

- as he was claiming to be
the case. Which many people will have agreed with.

Many? One? A Hundred? A Thousand? The majority of usenet? of the UK?
Another interesting point ... as soon as you've lost, try and rally others
to your defense. I'm now tiring of your stupidity. Unfortunately, so are a
ton of others, who will probably eventually request that I cease and desist,
because they tire reading me debate a moron.

I therefore had
something to add. Some people will have disagreed with my viewpoint -
I therefore had something to add to inspire them to join the debate.
Therefore - in YOUR book - YOU are wrong. Time to re-write your book I
think.

Well Sparky ... that paragraph, even when I read it before I inserted
comments, confused me. I have no idea what point you think you are making.

that you were UNABLE (and therefore unwilling) to debate the issues
raised.

Hang on a second, sport. Are you are or are you not debating? Would
you
make up your mind? You are obviously not debating because you are
supporting Andre's position, but you are debating because you are saying
I
am unable to debate. Would you stay on topic please ... it's almost as
bad
as arguing with a *woman,* though there I would get intelligent debate,
another area you fall flat on. Watch the door jam on the way out.
Wouldn't
want you to smack yourself on the back of the head. Don't worry, you
can
always call the police and file an abuse claim ... pathetic.

I think you need to go and lie down. You are obviously losing your
cool. Have a cup of tea and calm down.
Ok - settled. Have a hanky to wipe the tears and put your toys back in
the box.

Right .. non-responsive. If you can't debate the issue, make ridiculous
comments.

OK...

Right. I am not debating with you. I am educating you.

ROTFLMAO ... oh, that is what you were doing. I am all ears ...

Just because
you think something is so - does not make it correct.

Et tu, brutus, go back and revist your points about "YOU are wrong" and
stuff.

Just because
someone points out that what you believe to be the case, does not mean
it IS the case.

Are you arguing with yourself now? Boy, I guess I can excuse myself,
because you can continue to contradict yourself and contradict your
contradictions.

So you were arguing (not debating) with Andre over whether you were
actually able to debate the questions he raised.

Oh, I was? Actually, sport, my initial comment, which you jumped in on,
wasn't even directed *at* Andre. It was *about* Andre, but not at him.

You Ignored his
questions (which gave you the chance to debate the issue) and just
rambled on about insignificancies without so much as putting forward
your own responses and questions to his questions - therefore
preventing him from debating with you.

I've addressed this already. Re-read my previous post. Get back to me.

I just slipped in to suggest that your 'thoughts' that you WERE
debating the question - from an outsiders POV - were that you were
not.

I've address this too. Slipped is the correct action word, btw. And I am
glad you are an "outsider."

You then turned my disagreement with your opinion into a slanging
match in order to attemt to make me 'look' stupid

I don't think I need to "attempt." In fact, I think that you are able to do
the same all by your lonesome.

(As if even I care
what anonymous people think about my stupidity or otherwise). Fine in
some cases I did not put much thought into dealing with a couple of
the denigrations which you hurled at me. But that is not the issue.
The issue is that you are wrong - and you cannot accept it.

About what? Oh well, tiring. Hey sport, if I recall correctly. you hurled
the denigrations my way foist. I was just responding in kind. I am sure
you are a really nice likable guy. But if you are going to jump in on
somebody, a) be prepared for them to jump back, b) know the argument line
and c) listen and pay attention.

Oh, and your logic is all wrong. One can be unwilling to debate and
issue,
but not, unable. It is called lack of interest. And you have obviously
shown that even people that are UNABLE to debate an issue are definitely
not
unwilling double negative there spanky, know it is tough for you to
figure
it out, so I thought I would provide editorial comment (Ed. note - what
I am
saying is that YOU are unable to debate the topic, but you have
definitely
proved that despite your inability, you are still willing to try. A for
effort, but a failing grade for the project)

I have shown no such thing. I did not enter into the debate. Like I
keep saying - neither did you.

Wait a second, are we are are we not debating. Okay, you've confused me now
too.

Thanks for the amusement spanky. I've got to get back to work now, but
just
let me know if you want to come back and play in the sandbox.

Rambler

Appropriate pseudonym.

First sensible comment you made.

Rambler

I thinks rambler here has miss the hole point.
give up dave m.

"Rambler" iamrambler at yahoo dot com wrote in message ...
"Dave M" wrote in message
m...

I see - so you were debating an issue that no-one else was.... strange
form of debate... but OK. Have it your own way.

Yawn .. you're still here ... well as best as you can be. So it seems that
somebody else is involved.

I think not !!

Yes Shakespeare, I would agree that you think not.

Nice twist ! Shame the context in which is was written was lost.

Context?!?! You mean you're talking about context now?!?!? You're kidding,
right? Since when did that have anything to do with what you are saying.
Look at the first point that you tried to make above, then get back to me,
toots. You missed context a long time ago.

I would presume that you would be well acquainted with alternate
realities
... living in one will do that for you.

Going down hill now... No 'cleverness' in this one - its been used up
already !

You mean that many others have pointed out that you have been living in
alternate realities? Thanks for pointing that out.

Ah, bright star, you've been around usenet for a long time, haven't you?

A while.... pop in now and again.

Yes, I can tell. Guess that is why you use Google Posting. You technophile
you.

The number of "debates" that I have seen you guys take off topic is
enormous, yet when someone posts something that hits way too close to
home,
you squeal like a stuck pig. You're still funny.

Well - what can I say.... If I had seen any of your statements that
came within a mile of the issue being discussed by Andre - Let alone
close to home - I would not have felt the need to raise my initial
point.

What, the point that you are rallying to the battle flag of "Andre" ... hee
hee ... you are still funny.

The "debate" was on idiocy. You proved my point.

What - that you are an idiot ?
Fine - you win.

A shallow victory. And definitely, with such a worthy adversary as
yourself, one that really has no challenge at all. Keep trying to earn
your
spurs, sport, you're just providing amusement.

I know - its called 'idiot baiting'. They used to do it (baiting) with
bears and badgers (and still do in some places) - now we use Barbie's.

Boy, I didn't think the season was still running on you, but you proved me
wrong on that one.

You'll find dictionaries under the letter "d" ... that's the fourth
one
in
the alphabet (at least that way you won't have to take off your
other
glove
to get that high.

Barbie rule number 8854: when you've lost the plot - suggest that self
stimulation is the only form of satisfaction your opponent can muster.
(See also Barbie rule number 3321: Ridicule your opponent.)

I'm glad that you follow these rules in your own conduct, and are brave
enough to point it out to others. Btw, who was talking about self
stimulation ... oh let's see, that was you. I was talking about the
abilty
to count. It is a quality that idiots have a problem with, again
proving my
point, which would fall under your rule number 3321, Barbie.

Granted - I misunderstood your meaning - though it is a usual ploy.
Misunderstandings sometimes occur. Barbie rule still applies !

Well, you still have me chuckling ... you still are funny. But that is the
ridicule rule ...

You figured wrong. What would be pointless though - is debating with
someone who does not have the ability to debate nor the intelligence
to understand what debating is about.

You're right ... which was my point ... you have neither the intelligence
nor ability. I didn't know that I had to point everything out to you, but I
guess I needed to place editorial comments throughout the entire thing to
bring you along.


Keep up Sparky, keep up, you're missing the point. re-read it and see
if
you can catch it if it goes by slower.

No - second reading does not support your hypothesis. You cannot
discredit the subject without some sort of argument which PROVES you
right. Just because you say it is so - does not make you right. Just
because you have found a source which itself has no corroberation or
substansive facts on which to base your arguments - does not make the
original incorrect. It IS debatable.

Man, you're slower than even *I* thought. I'll ask some Socratic questions.
Which "subject" are you discussing Sparky? I'm discussing a previous one,
hence the references to googling and such. The "source" that was placed
forward was placed forward by your demi-god, Andre the great. (In fact, he
didn't even place the original research forward, but rather an article that
was purportedly based on the research. That link was what I disproved.)
The source that has no corroboration or substantive facts was placed forward
by *your* side. Rule number one, Barbie. When you find yourself in a hole,
stop digging. I know you'll learn that eventually.

Actually, the image that more fits your action was tripping over the
doorjam
as you tried to step in and falling on your face. You Ms.'d the point
of my
original comments, Ms.'d the points I made in your follow-up, Ms. read
key
sections and Ms. stated your opinions. Imagine that.

Nice one.... notice the how statements are a given - because it
supports just *your* viewpoint.

Sorry, "notice the how statements?" And isn't it supposed to be *my
viewpoint*, or are you debating somebody else.


Boy do you guys all fall into the same trap. If you've lost the battle,
criticise the spelling. You'll notice that I spell a lot of words
wrong. I
use 'hte' instead of 'the' and sometimes even use gassp, shock
horror -
oops, spelt 'gasp' wrong - use 'colour' instead of 'color.' I think
faster
than I type, and I am a Yank living overseas. Any normal moron would
just
move on on that, understanding what was meant. But you must be a
special
type of moron. What Barbie rule number is correcting spelling, Barbie?

Actually it is not your spelling - but your grammer which is at fault.
Nuff said !

That's funny. You mean, I miss-spell a word, and it is now a gramatical
problem. Pathetic. Can I hand you a bigger shovel?

Oh, and dumb-dumb, if you are going to criticize somebody's spelling,
make
sure you don't do it by having a spelling error in the criticisim. It
makes
you look really stupid. The word is per*s*nickety - there is an "s" in
there.

Depends whether you use English or American English actually. In case
you had not realised - there are a lot of differences in the way we
spell and say things. For example. Think of the way Americans use the
English word Nuclear - pronounced by Americans Nu-Que-Ler. Now I am
not sure how you spell it in America... but it MUST be different

Ah, it MUST be huh. Facts, cite, oh never mind. Never seen anybody ever
spell it as Knu-Clee-er, but I would figure that, having lost so much, we
are now debating differences between American English and British Englsh
because we pronounce it Nu-Clee-Er.
Not sure whether this is a good example in retrospect - but take it
from me - in English the S does not exist.
However in both grammers - the extra O does ! Because American grammer
is the same as English grammer - we use different words and spellings
- but the grammer is the same.
I am not so shallow as to worry about peoples spelling in UUSENET.
Like I said - I was just being pernickety - having fun.... Barbie
baiting !

Ah well, look up Webster. Also look up "grammer." You're still funny.

Boy, is this "we've won, run away" or what?

Neither.

Sport, it has got to be one or the other. It is either, A) "we've won, run
away or B) something else. Neither doesn't fit. But then again, I am
debating spelling and "grammer" with an anglophile.

Tell me Champ, you're not the new ove of Andre's life that he goes on
and on
about, are you? In my book, if you don't have anything to add, which
you
obviously don't, don't say anything. Yay, you are carrying the flag for
Andre. I know he needs all the help he can get, but you are really not
helping him, forget about youreself.

Was just attempting to let you understand that from other peoples
viewpoint - you were not debating the issue

Ah ... I see ... you have now taken on the mantle of representing the
people. Well, I do not claim to represent "other peoples," and I find it
funny when an individual claims to do such. Yes, I am sure that there are
some people who might claim the same, and I would take issue with them the
same way.

- as he was claiming to be
the case. Which many people will have agreed with.

Many? One? A Hundred? A Thousand? The majority of usenet? of the UK?
Another interesting point ... as soon as you've lost, try and rally others
to your defense. I'm now tiring of your stupidity. Unfortunately, so are a
ton of others, who will probably eventually request that I cease and desist,
because they tire reading me debate a moron.

I therefore had
something to add. Some people will have disagreed with my viewpoint -
I therefore had something to add to inspire them to join the debate.
Therefore - in YOUR book - YOU are wrong. Time to re-write your book I
think.

Well Sparky ... that paragraph, even when I read it before I inserted
comments, confused me. I have no idea what point you think you are making.

that you were UNABLE (and therefore unwilling) to debate the issues
raised.

Hang on a second, sport. Are you are or are you not debating? Would
you
make up your mind? You are obviously not debating because you are
supporting Andre's position, but you are debating because you are saying
I
am unable to debate. Would you stay on topic please ... it's almost as
bad
as arguing with a *woman,* though there I would get intelligent debate,
another area you fall flat on. Watch the door jam on the way out.
Wouldn't
want you to smack yourself on the back of the head. Don't worry, you
can
always call the police and file an abuse claim ... pathetic.

I think you need to go and lie down. You are obviously losing your
cool. Have a cup of tea and calm down.
Ok - settled. Have a hanky to wipe the tears and put your toys back in
the box.

Right .. non-responsive. If you can't debate the issue, make ridiculous
comments.

OK...

Right. I am not debating with you. I am educating you.

ROTFLMAO ... oh, that is what you were doing. I am all ears ...

Just because
you think something is so - does not make it correct.

Et tu, brutus, go back and revist your points about "YOU are wrong" and
stuff.

Just because
someone points out that what you believe to be the case, does not mean
it IS the case.

Are you arguing with yourself now? Boy, I guess I can excuse myself,
because you can continue to contradict yourself and contradict your
contradictions.

So you were arguing (not debating) with Andre over whether you were
actually able to debate the questions he raised.

Oh, I was? Actually, sport, my initial comment, which you jumped in on,
wasn't even directed *at* Andre. It was *about* Andre, but not at him.

You Ignored his
questions (which gave you the chance to debate the issue) and just
rambled on about insignificancies without so much as putting forward
your own responses and questions to his questions - therefore
preventing him from debating with you.

I've addressed this already. Re-read my previous post. Get back to me.

I just slipped in to suggest that your 'thoughts' that you WERE
debating the question - from an outsiders POV - were that you were
not.

I've address this too. Slipped is the correct action word, btw. And I am
glad you are an "outsider."

You then turned my disagreement with your opinion into a slanging
match in order to attemt to make me 'look' stupid

I don't think I need to "attempt." In fact, I think that you are able to do
the same all by your lonesome.

(As if even I care
what anonymous people think about my stupidity or otherwise). Fine in
some cases I did not put much thought into dealing with a couple of
the denigrations which you hurled at me. But that is not the issue.
The issue is that you are wrong - and you cannot accept it.

About what? Oh well, tiring. Hey sport, if I recall correctly. you hurled
the denigrations my way foist. I was just responding in kind. I am sure
you are a really nice likable guy. But if you are going to jump in on
somebody, a) be prepared for them to jump back, b) know the argument line
and c) listen and pay attention.

Oh, and your logic is all wrong. One can be unwilling to debate and
issue,
but not, unable. It is called lack of interest. And you have obviously
shown that even people that are UNABLE to debate an issue are definitely
not
unwilling double negative there spanky, know it is tough for you to
figure
it out, so I thought I would provide editorial comment (Ed. note - what
I am
saying is that YOU are unable to debate the topic, but you have
definitely
proved that despite your inability, you are still willing to try. A for
effort, but a failing grade for the project)

I have shown no such thing. I did not enter into the debate. Like I
keep saying - neither did you.

Wait a second, are we are are we not debating. Okay, you've confused me now
too.

Thanks for the amusement spanky. I've got to get back to work now, but
just
let me know if you want to come back and play in the sandbox.

Rambler

Appropriate pseudonym.

First sensible comment you made.

Rambler

I thinks rambler here has miss the hole point.
give up dave m.