Tech Support?

On Wed, 23 Oct 2013 09:13:11 +0200, Sandman wrote:

In article ,
Sandman 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.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2013-10-23 08:11:41 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

I claim your answer was ambiguous.

Hahaha!

This is CLASSIC.

Thanks for proving that English is something very confusing to you,
Tony.

I've already tried to point out to you that you interpret English too
rigidly and miss the subtle shades of meaning in the process. I've
trid to point out the possible uncertainty of this specific example.

And you've failed. This is not *me* interpreting something in a way you
disagree with - this is YOU interpreting a word incorrectly. You claim
that the word "always" is ambiguous. It is not.

We have no idea what you consider "always" to mean.

Yes, you do. Either it means what the word means or I am using it
incorrectly.

Shades of meaning.

Incorrect.

You could mean "always at that time".

No, "always" can't mean "always at that time" unless "at that time" is
appended to the statement. Adding qualifier's to someone else's
statement is idiotic. No such qualifiers were in the original statement
so no such qualifiers should be added by the receiver as a "could"
scenario. The statement is 100% clear as it was stated.

Possible implied qualifiers are normal. You relied on one when you
made your statement about "same as always".

Incorrect. I meant the word as it is defined, without any added
qualifiers. I meant to use "always" to mean "always". You guys had to
*add* qualifiers to make it ambiguous, which of course isn't my
problem. The phrase - as stated - was 100% clear and unambiguous.

Always
adverb
at all times, on all occasions

I'm sure your clown dictionary has something like "always: sometimes,
not all times, maybe occasionally" in the definition, but an actual
definition exists for us that know how to use them.

Including the future?

The phrase "same as always" does not include events that have yet to
occur, since they are not included in the definition of the word.

This is - of course - just a diversion on your part, since the question
wasn't about the future, but about the past, something that is 100%
contained by the word "always".

You've dodged the question asked of you by not providing a clear-cut
answer

Incorrect, Tony. Your ignorance of the English language is duly noted.

Are you not being a little arrogant?

Of course. But that's because you guys are being deliberately obtuse
and argue about something you know is incorrect. This is readily
apparent because you have yet to offer a logical argument where "same
as always" could mean "same as some times" or "same as usual" without
adding any qualifier to the statement itself. You have tried, you have
failed, and that means you're being deliberately obtuse. If that means
you guys are met with arrogance at your trolling, so be it.

so the possibility remains of another weasel.

Incorrect, again. That possibility only exists if you add qualifiers to
my statement, which of course you're inclined to do since you know that
as stated, the claim was 100% clear - only when you add "could"
qualifiers can it become ambiguous. 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.

As above, you have (probably unwittingly) been relying on a qualifier.

Incorrect. I have relied on the statement as it was written: "same as always".

100% clear and leaves no wiggle room what so ever.


--
Sandman[.net]

On 2013-10-23 08:12:33 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

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.

--
Sandman[.net]

On 2013-10-23 14:37, Whisky-dave wrote:

No "point" at all other than to use the word "always" to mean "always".

Is that always true as you've told me it isn't.

I have told you no such thing. Now you're lying.

Some people here didn't think that "always" meant what it means and that
my usage could mean "sometimes" or "mostly" - or even "usual".

So what does always mean.

Maybe you should consult a dictionary when you don't know what a word means?

You said I can t say I always drink tea beacuase I'm not always drinking tea.

Correct.



--
Sandman[.net]

On 2013-10-23 16:57, Tony Cooper wrote:

so the possibility remains of another weasel.

Incorrect, again. That possibility only exists if you add qualifiers to
my statement, which of course you're inclined to do since you know that
as stated, the claim was 100% clear - only when you add "could"
qualifiers can it become ambiguous. 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.

We are dealing with a statement that already hinges on a "qualifier".

Incorrect statement #1.

You have not always been known by the name nickname "Sandman".

According to what source of information? This is an explicit claim from
Tony about me that he has not substantiated. Will he do so in his followup?

The "qualifier" is "when posting to a newsgroup".

Incorrect statement #2.

At least that's what you claim.

Incorrect statement #3.

Maybe.

Incorrect statement #4.

There's weasel-room.

Incorrect statement #5.




--
Sandman[.net]

On 10/23/2013 12:23 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Wed, 23 Oct 2013 17:38:41 +0200, Sandman wrote:

On 2013-10-23 16:57, Tony Cooper wrote:

so the possibility remains of another weasel.

Incorrect, again. That possibility only exists if you add qualifiers to
my statement, which of course you're inclined to do since you know that
as stated, the claim was 100% clear - only when you add "could"
qualifiers can it become ambiguous. 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.

We are dealing with a statement that already hinges on a "qualifier".

Incorrect statement #1.

You have not always been known by the name nickname "Sandman".

According to what source of information? This is an explicit claim from
Tony about me that he has not substantiated. Will he do so in his followup?

Is the statement incorrect? Have you always gone by the nickname
"Sandman" including your life before Usenet?

The "qualifier" is "when posting to a newsgroup".

Substantiate that "Sandman" has been your nickname since birth.

Actually, I'll accept a clear-cut statement that has been your
nickname since birth, the only nickname you've ever been known as, and
the nickname was used throughout your entire life.


You and i have been wasting pixels on the troll from the East coast of
Scandinavia.


--
PeterN

On 2013-10-23, Tony Cooper wrote:

so the possibility remains of another weasel.

Incorrect, again. That possibility only exists if you add
qualifiers to my statement, which of course you're inclined to do
since you know that as stated, the claim was 100% clear - only when
you add "could" qualifiers can it become ambiguous. 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.

We are dealing with a statement that already hinges on a
"qualifier".

Incorrect statement #1.

You have not always been known by the name nickname "Sandman".

According to what source of information? This is an explicit claim
from Tony about me that he has not substantiated. Will he do so in his
followup?

Is the statement incorrect? Have you always gone by the nickname
"Sandman" including your life before Usenet?

Yes. But that's irrelevant, since the discussion was about usenet, not
"life before" usenet (or outside usenet). You are adding a diversion in
the hope that it will serve your purposes. You failed.

The "qualifier" is "when posting to a newsgroup".

Substantiate that "Sandman" has been your nickname since birth.

The burden of proof lies upon your shoulders, since it is your explicit
claim.

Actually, I'll accept a clear-cut statement that has been your
nickname since birth, the only nickname you've ever been known as, and
the nickname was used throughout your entire life.

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.


--
Sandman[.net]

On 2013-10-23, PeterN wrote:

Actually, I'll accept a clear-cut statement that has been your
nickname since birth, the only nickname you've ever been known as, and
the nickname was used throughout your entire life.

You and i have been wasting pixels on the troll from the East coast of
Scandinavia.

So stop "wasting pixels" being humiliated by your own weak trolling and stop posting ad hominems directed towards me - why not post to rec.photo.digital and try to improve your photography instead.


--
Sandman[.net]

On 2013-10-23, Whisky-dave wrote:

Is that always true as you've told me it isn't.

I have told you no such thing. Now you're lying.

I'm not lying I'm asking.

Where above is that question? No question mark and not forrmulated like a question.

So what does always mean.

Maybe you should consult a dictionary when you don't know what a word means?

I know what it means

So stop asking me then.


You said I can t say I always drink tea beacuase I'm not always drinking tea.

Correct.

So how can you use the word always....

I use it when appropriate by typing it or saying it. Is this really a serious question?


--
Sandman[.net]

On Wed, 23 Oct 2013 10:23:28 +0200, Sandman wrote:

On 2013-10-23 08:12:33 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

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. Are you saying that I was wrong?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens