Re: <none> - Mandrake

This is a discussion on Re: <none> - Mandrake ; On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 19:26:19 -0700, left_coast wrote: > Bit Twister wrote: > >> I did not claim to know what someone else knows. I said >> "The poster knew what s/he were doing when making the post" > ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Re: <none>

  1. Re: <none>

    On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 19:26:19 -0700, left_coast wrote:
    > Bit Twister wrote:
    >
    >> I did not claim to know what someone else knows. I said
    >> "The poster knew what s/he were doing when making the post"

    >
    > How do you know the "knew what s/he were doing when making the post"


    Why do keep trying to imply I knew what they know. I never said
    I knew what was in their mind.

    > if you don't know what they "knew"?


    You are just trying to put words in my mouth. Just is not going to happen.

    > Damn, you are making far less sense than USUAL.


    No, you made a stupid lying attempt to put words in my mouth and having
    failed that, are going back to personal attacks.

  2. Re: <none>

    Bit Twister wrote:

    >> How do you know the "knew what s/he were doing when making the post"

    >
    > Why do keep trying to imply I knew what they know. I never said
    > I knew what was in their mind.
    >


    Because you claimed to know what knowledge level the have when you state:

    To quote you:

    "The poster knew what s/he were doing when making the post."
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    See the word "KNEW" in the line I quoted from you? that makes it a statement
    about what "The poster" "knew". You know "The poster _knew_" You stated you
    knew what the knew EXPLICITLY. I know you don't like to stand behind the
    claims you make but this is ABSURD, you are denying something you
    EXPLICITLY stated. But what would I expect from a freak that thinks he can
    read minds.

    --
    Because I am tired of google trolls, I have started blocking all usenet
    posts from Google. Have fun Ethan, Tina, Maureen, or whatever name you
    chose to go by.

  3. Re: <none>

    On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:51:48 -0700, left_coast wrote:
    > Bit Twister wrote:
    >
    >>> How do you know the "knew what s/he were doing when making the post"

    >>
    >> Why do keep trying to imply I knew what they know. I never said
    >> I knew what was in their mind.
    >>

    >
    > Because you claimed to know what knowledge level the have when you state:
    >
    > To quote you:
    >
    > "The poster knew what s/he were doing when making the post."
    > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    > See the word "KNEW" in the line I quoted from you? that makes it a statement
    > about what "The poster" "knew".


    Very good. See you know the "poster knew" why do you continue to say
    "you know"


    > You know "The poster _knew_" You stated you knew what the knew EXPLICITLY.


    You sentence is junk. My statement states a fact. Unless the poster is
    asleep the poster knows what they are doing." nothing in my statement
    implies or says "I know or knew" what is in their mind.

    > I know you don't like to stand behind the claims you make but this is ABSURD,
    > you are denying something you EXPLICITLY stated.


    No, you are saying I know what they knew, and I said no such thing.

    Read this out loud
    "The poster knew what s/he were doing when they make the post."

    It does not say I know what the poster knew when they made the post.

    > But what would I expect from a freak that thinks he can read minds.


    Yep, create the lie and follow up with another lie with personal
    attack no less.

  4. Re: <none>

    Bit Twister wrote:

    >> Because you claimed to know what knowledge level the have when you state:
    >>
    >> To quote you:
    >>
    >> "The poster knew what s/he were doing when making the post."
    >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    >> See the word "KNEW" in the line I quoted from you? that makes it a
    >> statement about what "The poster" "knew".

    >
    > Very good. See you know the "poster knew" why do you continue to say
    > "you know"
    >


    Geezzz no wonder you give such BAD advice, you can't even follow a thread,
    much less understand basic Linux concepts. No, I do not know anything about
    the poster, I was just pointing out a claim that YOU made that you could
    not know unless you were a mindread.

    The fact that you have to resort to petty falsehoods just confirms my
    believe that you are a deliberate liar.

    As long as the test post ends up in the group it was intended to go to, the
    claim "Since the post showed up here, the test failed." Is a lie, no mater
    how many false accusations you hurl at me.

    --
    Because I am tired of google trolls, I have started blocking all usenet
    posts from Google. Have fun Ethan, Tina, Maureen, or whatever name you
    chose to go by.

  5. Re: <none>

    On Saturday 14 October 2006 05:51, left_coast stood up and addressed the
    masses in /alt.os.linux.mandrake/ as follows...:

    > Bit Twister wrote:
    >
    >>> How do you know the "knew what s/he were doing when making the post"

    >>
    >> Why do keep trying to imply I knew what they know. I never said
    >> I knew what was in their mind.
    >>

    >
    > Because you claimed to know what knowledge level the have when you state:
    >
    > To quote you:
    >
    > "The poster knew what s/he were doing when making the post."
    > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    > See the word "KNEW" in the line I quoted from you? that makes it a
    > statement about what "The poster" "knew". You know "The poster _knew_" You
    > stated you knew what the knew EXPLICITLY. I know you don't like to stand
    > behind the claims you make but this is ABSURD, you are denying something
    > you EXPLICITLY stated. But what would I expect from a freak that thinks he
    > can read minds.


    You just can't discern different contexts, can you?

    From the Free Dictionary, since you seem to like dictionaries - strangely
    enough you don't like spellcheckers -...:

    conĚtext (kntkst) n.
    1. The part of a text or statement that surrounds a particular word or
    passage and determines its meaning.
    2. The circumstances in which an event occurs; a setting.


    --
    With kind regards,

    *Aragorn*
    (registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

  6. Re: <none>

    Aragorn wrote:

    >> See the word "KNEW" in the line I quoted from you? that makes it a
    >> statement about what "The poster" "knew". You know "The poster _knew_"
    >> You stated you knew what the knew EXPLICITLY. I know you don't like to
    >> stand behind the claims you make but this is ABSURD, you are denying
    >> something you EXPLICITLY stated. But what would I expect from a freak
    >> that thinks he can read minds.

    >
    > You just can't discern different contexts, can you?


    He made a claim about the KNOWLEDGE of someone in BOTH CONTEXTS. But hey,
    you redefine terms to meat your needs so why not context, eh?

    --
    Because I am tired of google trolls, I have started blocking all usenet
    posts from Google. Have fun Ethan, Tina, Maureen, or whatever name you
    chose to go by.

+ Reply to Thread