![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 7/10/2007 2:21:41 PM, Clark wrote:
His post is ambiguous at best. My interpretation is reasonable even though it may or may not have been the author's intent. I'll maintain my stance on the author's nature. Very well. We all need a cause and it appears that you have advanced yours. -- Peter |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Peter R." wrote in message ... On 7/10/2007 2:21:41 PM, Clark wrote: His post is ambiguous at best. My interpretation is reasonable even though it may or may not have been the author's intent. I'll maintain my stance on the author's nature. Very well. We all need a cause and it appears that you have advanced yours. As with yourself. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 7/10/2007 4:12:17 PM, Clark wrote:
Do you have a point? Yes. My point is that you are making something out of nothing and seemingly damn proud of it. The original author had no intention of disrespecting Navy or Vietnam vets, yet even after he attempted to explain himself you still stand by the opinion that he did. As if you have never, ever posted a thought on Usenet that could have been misinterpreted by the reader... -- Peter |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Peter R." wrote in message ... On 7/10/2007 4:12:17 PM, Clark wrote: Do you have a point? Yes. My point is that you are making something out of nothing and seemingly damn proud of it. The original author had no intention of disrespecting Navy or Vietnam vets, yet even after he attempted to explain himself you still stand by the opinion that he did. As if you have never, ever posted a thought on Usenet that could have been misinterpreted by the reader... So snarl at the reader, not the poster: real good. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Matt Barrow writes:
So snarl at the reader, not the poster: real good. Better still, keep to the topic, and skip the personal attacks. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
... Matt Barrow writes: So snarl at the reader, not the poster: real good. Better still, keep to the topic You've repeatedly proven unable to keep to the topic in just about every newsgroup in which you've posted, particularly rec.travel.europe. Better still, ignore any such exhortations from Anthony "Mxsmanic" Atkielski, known Usenet troll and hypocrite. -- dgs |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Recently, Clark posted:
"Peter R." wrote in : On 7/10/2007 4:12:17 PM, Clark wrote: Do you have a point? Yes. My point is that you are making something out of nothing and seemingly damn proud of it. The original author had no intention of disrespecting Navy or Vietnam vets, yet even after he attempted to explain himself you still stand by the opinion that he did. You are leaping to an unsupported conclusion. There is no leaping involved, given that I've explained my original question in plain language, more than once. As if you have never, ever posted a thought on Usenet that could have been misinterpreted by the reader... Or maybe it was interpreted correctly by the reader? That's the nature of the beast since the author's statement can legitimately be taken either way. When it was clear to me that you misinterpreted my intended question, I clarified it. Others clarified it, as well. So, even if the original question was as ambiguous as you thought it was, there is no legitimate reason to continue to think that I was in any way disrespecting Navy or Vietnam vets. Indeed, I lost too many good friends in that fight to sully their memory in that way. As for you changing your mind, for whatever reason; I really don't care whether you do or not. Think whatever you want. But, I will continue to make it obvious to other readers of this thread where I stand, and then they can make up their own minds about your nature. Neil If you want to defend the author, fine, have at it. Expect others to acquiesce to your badgering? Forget it. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 7/11/2007 12:08:29 AM, Clark wrote:
Expect others to acquiesce to your badgering? My badgering? You asked if I had a point, so I explained it. -- Peter |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Peter R." wrote in message ... On 7/11/2007 12:08:29 AM, Clark wrote: Expect others to acquiesce to your badgering? My badgering? You asked if I had a point, so I explained it. Funny thing is, you never badgered the OP. Doesn't that seem funny, given that several people took it the same way. Reminds one of the people that endless excuses for their kids. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 7/11/2007 6:08:12 PM, Clark wrote:
"Peter R." wrote in : On 7/11/2007 12:08:29 AM, Clark wrote: Expect others to acquiesce to your badgering? My badgering? You asked if I had a point, so I explained it. Yes, badgering. Yawn. -- Peter |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Wake for RAR | Stuart & Kathryn Fields | Rotorcraft | 24 | April 16th 07 04:40 AM |
Wake turbulence | Glen in Orlando | Aviation Photos | 2 | December 2nd 06 03:39 PM |
Wake Turbulence behind an A-380 | Jay Honeck | Piloting | 23 | November 29th 05 04:14 AM |
caution - wake turbulence | John Harlow | Piloting | 1 | June 4th 04 04:40 PM |
Wake turbulence avoidance and ATC | Peter R. | Piloting | 24 | December 20th 03 11:40 AM |