Re: HELMETS!!!

Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
> >
> >> Zaumen, you made a fool of yourself for bringing up this issue in the
> >> first place in the eyes of all the people who went to the link and
had
> >> no problems viewing the video clip. They must think you are crazy for
> >> claiming that said video at said link likely does not exist.
> > Hey liar - I said that my PDF viewer didn't show anything - no
> > surprise
> > since the MIME type and file extension was misleading and givent that
> > I don't use Adobe products - and merely asked what was going on, being
> > well aware of your tendency to see some sort of helmet conspiracy
> > when absolutely nothing is going on.
> >
> Where is the lie? How can an opinion be a lie? Zaumen is not making
> sense here.

You misquoted me, asshole.
> 
> Furthermore, Zaumen did imply that something other than what I said
> was on the page when he wrote, "Is Sherman imagining things or just
> ranting?" Duh.

That was a perfectly valid question - you were either imagining the
video, but if it was there (and I specifically stated that my PDF
viewer did not show it), then you were obviously ranting -you usually
rant when the thought of a bicycle helmet enters your head.
> 
> >> Why should I worry about what a HTTP response header says when I have
> >> better information? If I see a lion in a cage at the zoo, should I
> >> believe the sign that says the cage contains a zebra instead?
> > Because the HTTP header information is there to tell your browser
> > what
> > to do with the thing it just downloaded - it's there because guessing
> > is not reliable and in a heterogeneous world, different OSs use
> > different file extentions.
> >
> >> Other people have no problem viewing the video clip.
> > So what?
> So why did Zaumen imply that I was inventing what was on the page? If
> I had done so, why has no one else pointed that out?

There's a little word "or" that Sherman is trying to ignore, but
misquoting is typical of him.

> 
> >> Well, no one else is re****ting problems. If you want to set up your
> >> system to create such difficulties that is your prerogative, but do
> >> not project that onto everyone else.
> > The web site re****ted a file type that was misleading.
> >
> So? That does NOT invalidate what I saw. Duh.

Idiot - it invalidates what you *said*, which was to stupidly argue
that because someone else hadn't re****ted a problem, it must have
been how I had "set up [my] system".  My system is set up just
fine.  The problem was the web site (and maybe Adobe) showing
no concern for interoperability.

> >> I should believe The Great Zaumen's suppositions over what I can
> >> observe myself? WOW!
> > Sherman, you are an idiot.
> > <rest of this moron's post snipped>
> >
> Awwww. Bill Zaumen is having a tantrum.

Snipping one of your idiotic posts is a "tantrum"?  Get a life.

-- 
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB