When to acknowledge ATC

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
.net...
What difference did it make if he was IFR or VFR? He just said he didn't
hear the quoted phraseology while he was on the frequency on the SFO Class
B airspace.

Whatever. Suffice to say, I don't read Hamish's post the same way you do.
Now you're just trying to cover up the fact that you failed to correctly
read my own post too.

Figures...

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

Whatever. Suffice to say, I don't read Hamish's post the same way you do.
Now you're just trying to cover up the fact that you failed to correctly
read my own post too.

Figures...

The fact is you misread Hamish's post and your ego won't let you admit it.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
. net...
The fact is you misread Hamish's post and your ego won't let you admit it.

Whether I did or not is irrelevant to the fact that you misread MY post.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

Whether I did or not is irrelevant to the fact that you misread MY post.

But I didn't misread YOUR post.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
k.net...
But I didn't misread YOUR post.

Whatever. You did, but you're too busy being the kettle and calling all the
other pots black to notice. Probably has something to do with YOUR
monumental ego.

For giggles, let's assume you didn't misread my post. I suppose you were
just reiterating the same point I'd already made then?

What other reason would you have for posting the reply to my post that you
did? I wrote that the previous poster was incorrect, then you replied
saying exactly that. Is that the new Usenet standard now? To just go
around quoting articles and restating what's already been written?

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

Whatever. You did, but you're too busy being the kettle and calling all
the other pots black to notice. Probably has something to do with YOUR
monumental ego.

For giggles, let's assume you didn't misread my post. I suppose you were
just reiterating the same point I'd already made then?

What other reason would you have for posting the reply to my post that you
did? I wrote that the previous poster was incorrect, then you replied
saying exactly that. Is that the new Usenet standard now? To just go
around quoting articles and restating what's already been written?


But you didn't write that the previous poster was incorrect, you wrote, "Not
that the previous poster is correct in what he says". Those statements are
not equivalent, stating that you're not saying the previous poster is
correct is not saying that he's incorrect.

I didn't misinterpret your post, you simply misspoke.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
k.net...
But you didn't write that the previous poster was incorrect, you wrote,
"Not that the previous poster is correct in what he says". Those
statements are not equivalent, stating that you're not saying the previous
poster is correct is not saying that he's incorrect.

It's not saying that he is correct either. Even ignoring your absurd
equivocation over what "not that" means and your egotistical refusal to
properly interpret my statement, there was no need for your reply.

As usual, since you're willing to take the most ridiculous stance and carry
it to genuinely silly extremes, you once again get the last word. I'm not
wasting any more time on your idiotic "no I didn't"s. I hope at least you
get as much satisfaction from your empty last word as I do from knowing
that, while you are compelled to respond with ever-increasing foolishness,
no matter how far it takes you, that I am able to resist replying to your
foolishness.

And just because I can...

WHATever.

Pete