Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>>>
>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>> You misquoted me, asshole.
>>>> Ooooh - Little Billy used a naughty word!!!
>>>> Direct citation for the misquote please.
>>> Sherman, I'm not going to play your "waste my time by
>>> getting me to go through old posts" game, particular
>>> when you gave an example in the post I'm replying to
>>> (see below).
>>>
>>>> I did not post anything claiming to be a quote from Zaumen with
>>>> altered text (other than possibly some snipping indicated by
ellipses,
>>>> which of course is perfectly proper), so Zaumen must be either
>>>> mistaken or lying.
>>> You don't have to literally quote text when you state that
>>> someone said something they didn't say.
>>>
>> Zaumen obviously does not understand what a quote is.
>
> You obviously don't understand colloquial English. The facts are
> that you misrepresented what I had said.
>
Zaumen confuses opinion with fact.
>
>>> The term "ranting" is quite appropriate for your anti-helmet
>>> posts.
>>>
>> Where is the properly done study that shows foam bicycle hats to be
>> effective in preventing serious head injuries and deaths?
>
> The issue was your ranting, and when you use silly terminology like
> "bicycle hats" when you mean "helmets", you are ranting. Also, you
> fail to grasp that sensible people don't buy helmets to avoid deaths,
> which are rare - they buy them to avoid or at least mitigate injuries.
>
>> Gee, I would have thought a computer expert would have found a way to
>> view the clip, instead of making himself look foolish.
>
> No, *you* looked foolish by assuming that everyone's system worked the
> same as yours. And I told you why I didn't load Adobe's software. You
> simply ignored it out of ignorance - you couldn't understand the issues.
>
The foolishness was Zaumen commenting from a state of ignorance, since
he did not watch the video.
> Also, I never said I was an "expert" - you did - as I don't like to
> brag. I would point out, though, that I got a free pass for Tuesday
> at the Java-One conference in San Francisco and scored a deck of cards
> from Amazon (plus a business card for where to submit resumes, which
> they only gave out to a handful of people): they showed some C code
> and would give you a token prize if you could predict how many
> additional function calls would occur if a statement in the program
> was eliminated. I had wandered by kind of late in the afternoon and
> it seems that, out of a group of attendees with quite a few computer
> professionals, I was the 5th person that day who had managed to get
> the right answer. It was apparently not for lack of trying.
>
Gee, I would have thought you could have found a way to watch the video
without destroying your computer.
>> Well, helmets are not really harmful compared to bicycle lanes.
>
> Another of your pet peeves. Grow up.
>
Says the person who rants about comment on a video he has not seen.
>>> <rest of this moron's rant snipped>
>>>
>> By Zaumen's standards the above is a lie, since I have proof from a
>> licensed professional that I am not a moron.
>
> Wrong - you are a moron. Just look at your posts.
>
Moronic behavior is flaming someone over commenting on a video that the
flamer has not watched. One wonders why Zaumen wanted to pick this fight?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
|
