Knock it off Ray. The man personally answered a specific charge that from George saying IZ didn't have permission to post on his behalf.
End of story. You're just mad because IZ was telling the truth about that, and didn't get "unproveably" stuck with the insinuation.
~ Duane Phillips.
Like I do regularly.
TRA lives for the acusee not being able to prove a negative.
Duane wrote:
He has NO obligation to pacify you.
YOU have an obligation to default to believing a fellow rocketeer until he proves himself wrong THEN to be skeptical as hell afterward.
As such you should believe and trust Cato, Irvine, Izzy, and grossly distrust Kelly, Rogers and even Bundick.
Jerry
Duane wrote:
there was only one such post, and everyone is entitled to make a mistake (by omission) on rare occasion. It is only your predilections that made it an issue [for you].
- iz
GCGassaway wrote:
intentional
I know what you asked. It was Ray starting up the other bandwagon again just because Cato showed his hand on Izzy's shoulder (so to speak). It was obvious he did not intend to persue a dialogue on rmr. His post was rather direct, and explained why he allowed Izzy the right to post his words (for whatever reason). So it still only had to do with vindicating Izzy WRT your questions, which I expect answered your query fully. By using the term "charge", I did not mean to imply anything more than a query, my apologies if it was taken to mean anything else.
Speaking of "lousy" facilitation, it is exactly that which tends to get me fired up, when Ray crops and quotes only snippets without properly attributing them, or "" signals. On several occasions he has twisted my meaning in follow-on posts because of what was snipped and forgotten. I don't try to make my points by twisting and reshaping another's words. I tend to expect the same regard in return. It is this facet, that grinds on my "etiquette" nerves. Ray apparently thinks nothing of it.
~ Duane Phillips.
Neither do I. But I do reply to specific points, and snip the parts that are irrelevant to the comment I'm replying to. I hate leaving huge pagefuls of quoted text just to reply to one or two specific points.
On several occasions you have twisted my meaning in follow-on posts because of what was snipped and forgotten.
And you never show previous thread reference...
It tells me that you *want* to confuse and obfuscate, leaving only enough to make your points. You do not desire the conversation to be evaluated from both sides.
~ Duane Phillips.
I think he's using a lame client that does not generate standard block text quoting with attribution lines or preserve the full "references" header.
I've noticed this with other posters with "aol.com" addresses, so it may be a characteristic of the software that came with some AOL disk versions or something.
-dave w
He ignores what was posted even when he does quote it. He makes psychological and locical breaks. He would be totally disqualified from any real debate in the first 3 minutes.
Jerry
I saw a commercial on Adult ADD last night
drug commercials are really fascinating. They'll have some very vague context, and then end with "ask your Doctor about 'foo'", without explaining what the drug 'foo' is supposed to treat.
when you ask your doctor, "gee, should I be taking 'foo'?", he looks at you in disbelief and explains that "foo" is for post-menopausal women! :)
I also love when they rattle off the infrequent side effects which in rare cases include permanent organ damage and death.
- iz
Jerry Irv> >
-- ""Remove "zorch" from address (2 places) to reply.
"Happy Fun Ball has been shipped to our troops in Saudi Arabia and is also being dropped by our warplanes on Iraq. "
Hmmm...somehow I don't think that line was part of the original SNL sketch.
Doug
Yes it was. We don't have too many troops in Saudi Arabia anymore. They got moved.
Gulf War I
Gulf War II / WWIII
-- ""Remove "zorch" from address (2 places) to reply.
You'll love this, do a search for Baycol and rhabdomyolysis. I worked on that case for 18 months(techwise, not legal). I used to think the most sinister evil out there was a certain total BS sw company out in Washington. After seeing the video depo's of the parties involved.... drug company execs will have a RSVP in hell.
Ted Novak TRA#5512
Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed wrote:
very unfortunate indeed, how did the FDA every approve this drug?
- iz
nedtovak wrote:
How does the FDA approve of any drug? Be it a laxative or a penile enlargement pill(sublinimal message in spam) Personally, I think it's outright corruption/bribery of the FDA folks.
Ted Novak TRA#5512
Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed wrote:
You know what? I think you are right!!! I normally would be first to notice the ramifications of AyeOhShmell use... I missed it this time.
Thankyou.
That covers basic thread link and attribution. And I will have to render some sympathetic lee-way there.
Unfortunately, it still does not cover the snipping methods... Does AOL require the individual to manually copy and paste the text they wish to include? If so, I'd be even more sympathetic... but I'd be compelled to give him attitude for choosing to use that *horrible* middle-man-piece-o-junk-make-you-pay-so-we-can-direct-trap-market-you-and-to
-you-at-your-expense---software.
I refuse to allow my internet time and download speeds to be wasted by that junk. Like Juno. Like MSN. Like most forms of NetZero... thpbpbpbpbp~~~ to all of them.
I prefer direct connection through my router to all my computers. Direct connect me and get outta the way. Like Comcast. Like Qwest. Like satellite. Like backbone access!
~ Duane Phillips.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.