Subj : Re: Good idea?
To   : Time Warrior
From : Angus Mcleod
Date : Sun Jun 19 2005 08:02 pm

  Re: Re: Good idea?
  By: Time Warrior to Angus Mcleod on Sun Jun 19 2005 12:37:00

 >  >  >  >  >  >  >  >  Thanks for the trip back in time. Can I have a time ma
 > 
 >  >  >  >  >  >  >  > I thought you and your 10 Tbyte H/D were regular time t
 > 
 >  >  >  >  >  >  > I thought you knew the difference between a hypathetical q
 > 
 >  >  >  >  >  > I thought you knew the difference between a humorous comment 
 > 
 >  >  >  >  > Just because I didn't laugh or smile does not mean I also was no
 >  >  >  >  > jest. See what I mean about assumptions? <G>
 > 
 >  >  >  > I see that you are making one right now.....
 > 
 >  >  > How so?
 > 
 >  > You are assuming that *I* am making an assumption about the seriousness
 >  > (or lack thereof) of this thread.  Just because *I* didn't place a
 >  > suitable emoticon anywhere in my post does not mean that I am unaware tha
 >  > you were joking, or that I in return was not doing so also.
 > 
 > The part of my reply (99.9% of it) that you conveniently left out proves tha
 > this is NOT what I did.

As usual, you will argue that if I could only read, I would see that you 
are correct.  But if you insist:

 > As i said prior, although I'm sure you'll just clip it out again -- 

I clipped it out originally, because it was immaterial.  But if you 
insist:

 > How so? I stated a fact about my post (i posted it, I think i'd be the 
 > one to know lol) and I voiced an opinion in the form of a jokingly
 > sarcastic question. I fail to see how my opinion of my own post and 
 > sarcastic humor is making an assumption.

You ALSO said "See what I mean about assumptions? <G>" which implies that 
I was making an assumption, which was an assumption on your part.

 > Twisting other peoples words (or removing them all together) does not help
 > make your non-exsistant points.

My non-existant point was that I was not making any assumptions.  All my 
points become non-exsistant as soon as they show you to be WRONG which 
seems to happen with boring regularlty.

 > I already stated that my opinion was of my own post, and that I was 
 > also using sarcasm. Perhaps just because *I* didn't place a suitable 
 > emoticon anywhere as I ussually do in my posts, you made yet another 
 > assumption that quoting the rest of what I said was irrelevent.

The day your emoticons or (lack thereof) leads me to misunderstand a post 
of yours, you can assume I have suffered a head-injury.

 > Just because I occassionally do not use emoticons (deviating from my ussual
 > patern of using them) does not mean that I am unaware that you were joking,
 > or that I in return was not doing so also.

I knew you were joking all along.  You assumed because I responded in a 
similar straight-faced fashion, that *I* was confused.  Let me make things 
easy for you in future -- you don't have the IQ to confuse me.

Now, I'm bored with you, and so I think I'll twit you for a few weeks...


---
 þ Synchronet þ Synchronet Track-and-field: Discus event at The ANJO BBS

.