No More OT Posts From Me

"Rob Kelk" <robkelk@deadspam.com> wrote in message
news:48aa0aa2.1634546@news.individual.net...[color=blue]
> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 19:29:30 -0400, "sanjian" <mungkb@vt.edu> wrote:[/color]
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> specialized term. And this *is* off-topic... Can we agree to disagree,
>>> remembering that this particular use of "forum" does annoy me for what
>>> some but not all folks appear to think is a silly reason, and let the
>>> matter drop?[/color]
>>
>>Sorry, Rob, but you do NOT get to make your arguments, and then suggest we
>>drop it. If you wanted the matter dropped, you shouldn't have kept
>>debating.[/color]
>
> Do you seriously expect that you're going to be able to change my mind?[/color]

So, are you saying you're a brain-dead fool, with no ability to learn and
exchange ideas? Whether I'm right or whether I'm wrong, the fact that you
are, by your own admission, not open to having your mind changed, reflects
far more upon you than it does on me.

So, yes, I figured that maybe your mind was open to being changed. Perhaps
I gave you far more credit than you merit?
[color=blue]
> If you really want to waste time and bandwidth trying, please take it to
> e-mail.[/color]

Again, what you say and what you, yourself, do are very different. Why is
it you chose to waste bandwidth with your post, but it's not ok for those
who disagree with you?

"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in message
news:g8d1ti$2sp$1@registered.motzarella.org...[color=blue]
> sanjian wrote:[color=green]
>> "Rob Kelk" <robkelk@deadspam.com> wrote in message
>> news:48a9e2e2.643140@news.individual.net...[color=darkred]
>>> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 05:19:40 -0700 (PDT), SpaceGirl
>>> <nothespacegirlspam@subhuman.net> wrote:[/color]
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>> If you were to try *using* either of those definitions here, you'd get
>>> flamed.
>>>
>>> Just because it's in a dictionary doesn't make it right.[/color]
>>
>> Thank you, Cheshire Cat.[/color]
>
> Humpty-Dumpty, actually.[/color]

Ach! And I just got through this debate with a friend who said I was wrong
(I said it was Humpty Dumpty then, she thought it was the caterpiller). I
guess my eggs got scrambled.

Er, what I mean to say is that you are using Humpty Dumpty in a general
sense, which is incorrect. I'm talking about a specific definition of
Cheshire Cat. Why can't you see that? Yeah, that's the ticket.

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 21:53:18 -0400, "sanjian" <mungkb@vt.edu> wrote:
[color=blue]
>"Rob Kelk" <robkelk@deadspam.com> wrote in message
>news:48aa0aa2.1634546@news.individual.net...[color=green]
>> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 19:29:30 -0400, "sanjian" <mungkb@vt.edu> wrote:[/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>> specialized term. And this *is* off-topic... Can we agree to disagree,
>>>> remembering that this particular use of "forum" does annoy me for what
>>>> some but not all folks appear to think is a silly reason, and let the
>>>> matter drop?
>>>
>>>Sorry, Rob, but you do NOT get to make your arguments, and then suggest we
>>>drop it. If you wanted the matter dropped, you shouldn't have kept
>>>debating.[/color]
>>
>> Do you seriously expect that you're going to be able to change my mind?[/color]
>
>So, are you saying you're a brain-dead fool, with no ability to learn and
>exchange ideas? Whether I'm right or whether I'm wrong, the fact that you
>are, by your own admission, not open to having your mind changed, reflects
>far more upon you than it does on me.
>
>So, yes, I figured that maybe your mind was open to being changed. Perhaps
>I gave you far more credit than you merit?
>[color=green]
>> If you really want to waste time and bandwidth trying, please take it to
>> e-mail.[/color]
>
>Again, what you say and what you, yourself, do are very different. Why is
>it you chose to waste bandwidth with your post, but it's not ok for those
>who disagree with you?[/color]

Y'know, I tried to end this quietly. Twice. <sigh> But, no - you
insist on dragging this out in public.

No more.

*plonk*

--
Rob Kelk Personal address (ROT-13): eboxryx -ng- tznvy -qbg- pbz
"Aggresive killfiling. I highly recommend it. It isn't personal;
there's just a limited number of hours in the day."
- Russ Allbery (<http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>), in message
<yl66l68ilh.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>

"Rob Kelk" <robkelk@deadspam.com> wrote in message
news:48aa3427.12263031@news.individual.net...[color=blue]
> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 21:53:18 -0400, "sanjian" <mungkb@vt.edu> wrote:[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>>Again, what you say and what you, yourself, do are very different. Why is
>>it you chose to waste bandwidth with your post, but it's not ok for those
>>who disagree with you?[/color]
>
> Y'know, I tried to end this quietly. Twice. <sigh> But, no - you
> insist on dragging this out in public.
>
> No more.
>
> *plonk*[/color]

No, sir, you didn't. If you had tried to end it quietly, I'd have had
nothing to reply to. You tried to end it with a last word, and you're
indignant that I didn't allow you that. So now you're throwing a temper
tantrum.

Don't worry, I won't plonk you. I'll still be here when you change your
diaper.

"Rob Kelk" <robkelk@deadspam.com> wrote in message
news:48aa3427.12263031@news.individual.net...[color=blue]
> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 21:53:18 -0400, "sanjian" <mungkb@vt.edu> wrote:[color=green]
>>Again, what you say and what you, yourself, do are very different. Why is
>>it you chose to waste bandwidth with your post, but it's not ok for those
>>who disagree with you?[/color]
>
> Y'know, I tried to end this quietly. Twice. <sigh> But, no - you
> insist on dragging this out in public.
>
> No more.
>
> *plonk*[/color]

....it's kind of hard to "end this quietly" when, as he pointed out, you keep
posting publically. In what way are you not also "dragging this out in
public"? Should you killfile yourself for repeatedly violating your own
attempts to take it to email?

-
Blade

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:42:43 -0400, "Blade" <kumonryuu@hotmail.com>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>"Rob Kelk" <robkelk@deadspam.com> wrote in message
>news:48aa3427.12263031@news.individual.net...[color=green]
>> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 21:53:18 -0400, "sanjian" <mungkb@vt.edu> wrote:[color=darkred]
>>>Again, what you say and what you, yourself, do are very different. Why is
>>>it you chose to waste bandwidth with your post, but it's not ok for those
>>>who disagree with you?[/color]
>>
>> Y'know, I tried to end this quietly. Twice. <sigh> But, no - you
>> insist on dragging this out in public.
>>
>> No more.
>>
>> *plonk*[/color]
>
>...it's kind of hard to "end this quietly" when, as he pointed out, you keep
>posting publically. In what way are you not also "dragging this out in
>public"? Should you killfile yourself for repeatedly violating your own
>attempts to take it to email?[/color]

Aw, fer...

Take it to e-mail. Please. I just did.

--
Rob Kelk Personal address (ROT-13): eboxryx -ng- tznvy -qbg- pbz
"Aggresive killfiling. I highly recommend it. It isn't personal;
there's just a limited number of hours in the day."
- Russ Allbery (<http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>), in message
<yl66l68ilh.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>

"Rob Kelk" <robkelk@deadspam.com> wrote in message
news:48aad095.1544250@news.individual.net...[color=blue]
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:42:43 -0400, "Blade" <kumonryuu@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>"Rob Kelk" <robkelk@deadspam.com> wrote in message
>>news:48aa3427.12263031@news.individual.net...[color=darkred]
>>> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 21:53:18 -0400, "sanjian" <mungkb@vt.edu> wrote:
>>>>Again, what you say and what you, yourself, do are very different. Why
>>>>is
>>>>it you chose to waste bandwidth with your post, but it's not ok for
>>>>those
>>>>who disagree with you?
>>>
>>> Y'know, I tried to end this quietly. Twice. <sigh> But, no - you
>>> insist on dragging this out in public.
>>>
>>> No more.
>>>
>>> *plonk*[/color]
>>
>>...it's kind of hard to "end this quietly" when, as he pointed out, you
>>keep
>>posting publically. In what way are you not also "dragging this out in
>>public"? Should you killfile yourself for repeatedly violating your own
>>attempts to take it to email?[/color]
>
> Aw, fer...
>
> Take it to e-mail. Please. I just did.[/color]

And posted here to let the whole world know. It's an obsession with you,
isn't it? Should I go ahead and start making that "he can't help it"
exception in your case?