Tech Support?

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

should be a hint of the thin ice you're threading.
treading.

should be aware of the thin ice on which you are treading.

Incorrect.

My correction was grammatic.

Incorrect, your alternate version carried a totally different meaning than mine did.

Are you saying that I was wrong?

If you meant to offer a more correct or clearer version of what I wrote; yes.

I offered a grammatically correct version of what I thought you wrote.

No, this is what I wrote:

The fact that YOU are the one adding them and them not being
actually present in the original statement should be a hint of the
thin ice you're threading.

Your supposedly "grammatically correct" version of the above sentence:

The fact that YOU are the one adding them and them not being
actually present in the original statement should be aware of the
thin ice on which you are treading

Tell me again about how this is grammatically correct, Eric.

Presumably treading ice (whether thick or thin) is a bit like treading
grapes. Treading *on* thin ice has an entirely different meaning and
suggests that there is a danger of someone having their support break
under them with hazardous consequences. This is what I thought you
meant but if you meant something else I would be grateful if explained
what it was.

I meant it as stated. Not the grammatically jumbled version you wanted to
make it into, which if you alter it to make it grammatically correct still
carries a totally different meaning about someone should be aware of
something rather than something being a hint about something else.

Will you argue about this as long as your breath will last as well?

--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

The qualification of the respective usages can be implicit rather than explicit but, either way, you have consistently denied that any such
qualification is either present or necessary.

Correctly so.

You want it both ways.

I want to have it the correct way only.

You argue that your original claim was correct, subject to the
qualification 'as used'.

No, I argue that my original claim was clear and direct and had no weasel
room.

Yet, as you have just confirmed, you deny that any such qualification
is either present of necessary.

No "denying" necessary.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

Your diversion is duly noted. The claim you made is that "same as
always" can mean something other than "same as always" without adding
qualifiers - you have failed to do so. Trying to move the scope of
"always" outside the scope of usenet, which was the question that was
asked, isn't helping you in your rather inefficient troll either.

That's an interesting perspective. "Always" began the first time you
inflicted yourself in a newsgroup.

Incorrect statement #1.

You - a person who believes in strict dictionary definitions - are
quite willing to bend the definition of "always" to suit your purpose.

Incorrect statement #2.

Sometimes, when reading Jonas' posts, I think I've been transported to
the croquet pitch and the Queen of Hearts is Swedish.

I get tired explaining simple concepts over and over to two trolls that can
argue about anything and everything. So I just go back to repeating your
incorrect statements, all of which I've substantiated in the past. I won't
sit and cut and paste every explanation every time.

Stop trolling and your misinformation won't be pointed out.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

On Wed, 09 Oct 2013 11:18:41 +0200, Sandman wrote:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

But that doesn't resolve your problem with accepting that the iPad
with Lightning is not USB compliant unless assisted by an external
device.

by your definition, nothing can be usb compliant.

Idiot.

Eric shows the full capacity of his reasoning skills.

Roadkill yet again.

Can't you sleep? Going back and dredging up old posts like that.

Perhaps that explains why you don't seem to know to whom you are
responding.

What the hell? You're the one dragging up an old post here. I wrote that 9
october as your quote quite clearly makes obvious. Why are you dragging up
old posts, can't you sleep? This may explain why you don't seem to know to
whom you're responding...

--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

On Wed, 09 Oct 2013 21:36:42 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Oct 2013 02:26:54 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

That was the problem. Eventually nospam said something which added
meaning and all was sweet from then.

stop lying. i explained it nearly a *week* ago, just 2 days after peter
started saying it wasn't a usb device (quoted in another post
yesterday).

you missed it entirely and can't admit your error.

It's not a lie. It's clear that I had not got the point of what you
were saying until (eventually) you expressed yourself more clearly.
And then I accepted your point.

in other words, you missed it entirely, just like i said.

I'm glad you have learned to read.

But that doesn't resolve your problem with accepting that the iPad
with Lightning is not USB compliant unless assisted by an external
device.

by your definition, nothing can be usb compliant.

Idiot.

That's your partner in crime to whom you are being rude.

Now Eric is posting replies to himself... Talk abut being confused about
whom he is responding to... Plus he is telling himself that nospam is his
"partner in crime"... Duh.


--
Sandman[.net]

On 24 Oct 2013 05:59:21 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

On Wed, 09 Oct 2013 11:18:41 +0200, Sandman wrote:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

But that doesn't resolve your problem with accepting that the iPad
with Lightning is not USB compliant unless assisted by an external
device.

by your definition, nothing can be usb compliant.

Idiot.

Eric shows the full capacity of his reasoning skills.

Roadkill yet again.

Can't you sleep? Going back and dredging up old posts like that.

Perhaps that explains why you don't seem to know to whom you are
responding.

What the hell? You're the one dragging up an old post here. I wrote that 9
october as your quote quite clearly makes obvious. Why are you dragging up
old posts, can't you sleep? This may explain why you don't seem to know to
whom you're responding...

It just appeared. Yes it is old.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 24 Oct 2013 06:00:50 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

On Wed, 09 Oct 2013 21:36:42 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Oct 2013 02:26:54 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

That was the problem. Eventually nospam said something which added
meaning and all was sweet from then.

stop lying. i explained it nearly a *week* ago, just 2 days after peter
started saying it wasn't a usb device (quoted in another post
yesterday).

you missed it entirely and can't admit your error.

It's not a lie. It's clear that I had not got the point of what you
were saying until (eventually) you expressed yourself more clearly.
And then I accepted your point.

in other words, you missed it entirely, just like i said.

I'm glad you have learned to read.

But that doesn't resolve your problem with accepting that the iPad
with Lightning is not USB compliant unless assisted by an external
device.

by your definition, nothing can be usb compliant.

Idiot.

That's your partner in crime to whom you are being rude.

Now Eric is posting replies to himself... Talk abut being confused about
whom he is responding to... Plus he is telling himself that nospam is his
"partner in crime"... Duh.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

The best, most logical and most to the point and reasonable post Eric ever
wrote below


On 24 Oct 2013 06:00:50 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

On Wed, 09 Oct 2013 21:36:42 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Oct 2013 02:26:54 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

That was the problem. Eventually nospam said something which added
meaning and all was sweet from then.

stop lying. i explained it nearly a *week* ago, just 2 days after peter
started saying it wasn't a usb device (quoted in another post
yesterday).

you missed it entirely and can't admit your error.

It's not a lie. It's clear that I had not got the point of what you
were saying until (eventually) you expressed yourself more clearly.
And then I accepted your point.

in other words, you missed it entirely, just like i said.

I'm glad you have learned to read.

But that doesn't resolve your problem with accepting that the iPad
with Lightning is not USB compliant unless assisted by an external
device.

by your definition, nothing can be usb compliant.

Idiot.

That's your partner in crime to whom you are being rude.

Now Eric is posting replies to himself... Talk abut being confused about
whom he is responding to... Plus he is telling himself that nospam is his
"partner in crime"... Duh.


--
Sandman[.net]

On 24 Oct 2013 05:54:09 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

should be a hint of the thin ice you're threading.
treading.

should be aware of the thin ice on which you are treading.

Incorrect.

My correction was grammatic.

Incorrect, your alternate version carried a totally different meaning than mine did.

Are you saying that I was wrong?

If you meant to offer a more correct or clearer version of what I wrote; yes.

I offered a grammatically correct version of what I thought you wrote.

No, this is what I wrote:

The fact that YOU are the one adding them and them not being
actually present in the original statement should be a hint of the
thin ice you're threading.

Your supposedly "grammatically correct" version of the above sentence:

The fact that YOU are the one adding them and them not being
actually present in the original statement should be aware of the
thin ice on which you are treading

Tell me again about how this is grammatically correct, Eric.

Presumably treading ice (whether thick or thin) is a bit like treading
grapes. Treading *on* thin ice has an entirely different meaning and
suggests that there is a danger of someone having their support break
under them with hazardous consequences. This is what I thought you
meant but if you meant something else I would be grateful if explained
what it was.

I meant it as stated. Not the grammatically jumbled version you wanted to
make it into, which if you alter it to make it grammatically correct still
carries a totally different meaning about someone should be aware of
something rather than something being a hint about something else.

Will you argue about this as long as your breath will last as well?

I will accept that my correction did not express the meaning you
intended.

Could you then explain what exactly you meant when you wrote about
"the thin ice you are threading". It's not an expression with which I
am familiar.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

No, this is what I wrote:

The fact that YOU are the one adding them and them not being
actually present in the original statement should be a hint of the
thin ice you're threading.

Your supposedly "grammatically correct" version of the above sentence:

The fact that YOU are the one adding them and them not being
actually present in the original statement should be aware of the
thin ice on which you are treading

Tell me again about how this is grammatically correct, Eric.

I meant it as stated. Not the grammatically jumbled version you wantedto
make it into, which if you alter it to make it grammatically correct still
carries a totally different meaning about someone should be aware of
something rather than something being a hint about something else.

Will you argue about this as long as your breath will last as well?

I will accept that my correction did not express the meaning you
intended.

Or was grammatically correct.

Could you then explain what exactly you meant when you wrote about
"the thin ice you are threading". It's not an expression with which I
am familiar.

The expression of treading on thin ice usually means you're pushing the
limits, in this case Tony was pushing the limits of creative interpretation
where he had to insert qualifiers into my statement to make it mean the
things he wanted it to mean.

An example he

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...6062841AAxjsZ0

"The phrase "treading on thin ice" means you are in a precarious
position."

Etc.


--
Sandman[.net]