Sony closes 2/3 of its stores in the U.S.

On Fri, 07 Mar 2014 19:21:37 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , PeterN
wrote:

I know few really productive people who don't eat at their keyboard.
You sound as if you never had a cold eggroll or pizza shift.

i frequently eat at the keyboard, except i know how to not get crap in
it.

You should be more careful with your wording. :-)

(The mind boggles.)
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , PeterN wrote:

PeterN:
I have no reason to bother. Very few of your postings are
important.

Sandman:
One wonders why you keep following me around to respond to my
posts over and ovr just to add a personal attack, then?

Don.t flatter yourself. If you really think you are being followed,
I suggest you get some professional help, and postpone your next
large penis purchase.

Very mature, Peter.

My posts directed at you where you weren't talking to me
----------------------------------------------------------------------
01.
02.
03.
04.
05.
06.


Your posts directed at me where I wasn't talking to you
----------------------------------------------------------------------
01.
02.
03.
04.
05.
06.
07.
08.
09.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

Sandman:
My posts directed at you where you weren't talking to me

Your posts directed at me where I wasn't talking to you

What a strange concept of what a newsgroup is.

Huh? Where above is the heading "This is what a newsgroup is", Tony?

You - as usual - snipped out the context, which was the concept of Peter
following me around - which the list quite clearly illustrated.

You and Peter are posting in an open forum where anyone with access can
read and respond the posts, and you think you are "talking to" a specific
individual?

So, when you're at a party and talking, you are directing that to everyone
present? This post I am writing right now is directed at you, it is a
response to you. The two of us are "talking". Being at a party or in a
newsgroup - our "conversation" can be overheard and others can join in, but
that doesn't change the fact that I am talking to you, not "the room" or
"rpd".

When at a party, there may be this really annoying person (let's call him
"Peter") who always stands near to overhear what I say to someone else, and
then steps up just to add a personal insult to an otherwise non-provocative
conversation.

Back in the AOL Chat Room days, you could open a new room and notify
someone by IM to meet you there and have a private conversation. I
guess you think that's the way newsgroups should work.

I guess you don't know what you're talking about... again. I suppose that's
how you arrived at the conclusion that I was making a post about what "a
newsgroup is".




--
Sandman[.net]

On 3/8/2014 1:14 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On 8 Mar 2014 16:39:16 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

Sandman:
My posts directed at you where you weren't talking to me

Your posts directed at me where I wasn't talking to you

What a strange concept of what a newsgroup is.

Huh? Where above is the heading "This is what a newsgroup is", Tony?

You - as usual - snipped out the context, which was the concept of Peter
following me around - which the list quite clearly illustrated.

Of course I snipped. The polite thing to do is snip away what is not
being responded to in order to make the response more readable.

What do you mean "following me around"? I don't know what newreader
Peter uses, but mine opens up a list of unread posts and is set to
show them in alphabetical order by Subject. I read the top post on
the screen and then progress to the next post, and so on.

You are read in the order your posts come up. Not followed.


You and Peter are posting in an open forum where anyone with access can
read and respond the posts, and you think you are "talking to" a specific
individual?

So, when you're at a party and talking, you are directing that to everyone
present?

This is not a party. It's a newsgroup. Comparing the two is
ridiculous.

This post I am writing right now is directed at you, it is a
response to you. The two of us are "talking". Being at a party or in a
newsgroup - our "conversation" can be overheard and others can join in, but
that doesn't change the fact that I am talking to you, not "the room" or
"rpd".

I have absolutely no objections to anyone joining in a newsgroup
discussion that I'm part of. I have absolutely no impression that
what I write here is not intended to be shared by anyone who reads it.
To think otherwise here is ridiculous.

and When at a party, there may be this really annoying person (let's call him
"Peter")

Or, "Popinjay".

who always stands near to overhear what I say to someone else, and
then steps up just to add a personal insult to an otherwise non-provocative
conversation.

Back in the AOL Chat Room days, you could open a new room and notify
someone by IM to meet you there and have a private conversation. I
guess you think that's the way newsgroups should work.

I guess you don't know what you're talking about... again. I suppose that's
how you arrived at the conclusion that I was making a post about what "a
newsgroup is".

No, I said you are posting something that shows you don't understand
what a newsgroup is.


This response is directed towards Tony Cooper.
Please note that Popinjay, as used here, should be capitalized.

--
PeterN

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Of course I snipped. The polite thing to do is snip away what is not
being responded to in order to make the response more readable.

tell peter that.

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

Sandman:
My posts directed at you where you weren't talking to
me

Your posts directed at me where I wasn't talking to you

Tony Cooper:
What a strange concept of what a newsgroup is.

Sandman:
Huh? Where above is the heading "This is what a newsgroup is",
Tony?

You - as usual - snipped out the context, which was the concept of
Peter following me around - which the list quite clearly
illustrated.

Of course I snipped. The polite thing to do is snip away what is not
being responded to in order to make the response more readable.

The trollish thing is to snip away the context that explains what was being
said just to add a trolling interpretation of what was said, something you
can't do while also keeping the context.

What do you mean "following me around"? I don't know what newreader
Peter uses, but mine opens up a list of unread posts and is set to
show them in alphabetical order by Subject. I read the top post on
the screen and then progress to the next post, and so on.

You are read in the order your posts come up. Not followed.

Ah, semantics, the trolls last resort. Feign ignorance about the expression
"follow around" even though it was explained in the very post he is
responding to.

Tony Cooper:
You and Peter are posting in an open forum where anyone with
access can read and respond the posts, and you think you are
"talking to" a specific individual?

Sandman:
So, when you're at a party and talking, you are directing that to
everyone present?

This is not a party.

It was an analogy. Change "party" to "photography club" if you like.

It's a newsgroup. Comparing the two is ridiculous.

No it isn't.

Sandman:
This post I am writing right now is directed at you, it is a
response to you. The two of us are "talking". Being at a party or
in a newsgroup - our "conversation" can be overheard and others
can join in, but that doesn't change the fact that I am talking to
you, not "the room" or "rpd".

I have absolutely no objections to anyone joining in a newsgroup
discussion that I'm part of.

Me neither.

I have absolutely no impression that what I write here is not intended to
be shared by anyone who reads it. To think otherwise here is ridiculous.

YOu have to take that up with someone who thinks that, then.

Sandman:
and When at a party, there may be this really annoying person (let's
call him "Peter") who always stands near to overhear what I say to
someone else, and then steps up just to add a personal insult to an
otherwise non-provocative conversation.

Huh, Tony glossed over this part. How... curious.

Tony Cooper:
Back in the AOL Chat Room days, you could open a new room and
notify someone by IM to meet you there and have a private
conversation. I guess you think that's the way newsgroups
should work.

Sandman:
I guess you don't know what you're talking about... again. I
suppose that's how you arrived at the conclusion that I was making
a post about what "a newsgroup is".

No, I said you are posting something that shows you don't understand
what a newsgroup is.

No you didn't. What you wrote is still quoted above. Either way, that
version is an equally inadequate conclusion.

--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Of course I snipped. The polite thing to do is snip away what is not
being responded to in order to make the response more readable.

tell peter that.

Well, you see, this is an open forum and anyone can read anything
posted here. I don't have to *tell* Peter anything.

normally yes. however, he has a problem with understanding the concept.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Of course I snipped. The polite thing to do is snip away what is not
being responded to in order to make the response more readable.

tell peter that.

Well, you see, this is an open forum and anyone can read anything
posted here. I don't have to *tell* Peter anything.

normally yes. however, he has a problem with understanding the concept.

What I've seen Peter object to is snipping that removes context that
changes the meaning of what remains. Whether or not you agree that
removed context changes something is dependant on the individual
instance.

i do not remove anything that changes context, but if someone is
confused, the references are intact so someone can easily retrieve what
was snipped. in other words, non-issue.

On 3/8/2014 5:30 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sat, 08 Mar 2014 16:31:06 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Of course I snipped. The polite thing to do is snip away what is not
being responded to in order to make the response more readable.

tell peter that.

Well, you see, this is an open forum and anyone can read anything
posted here. I don't have to *tell* Peter anything.

normally yes. however, he has a problem with understanding the concept.

What I've seen Peter object to is snipping that removes context that
changes the meaning of what remains. Whether or not you agree that
removed context changes something is dependant on the individual
instance.

i do not remove anything that changes context, but if someone is
confused, the references are intact so someone can easily retrieve what
was snipped. in other words, non-issue.

I don't have a complaint that you snip context that shouldn't be
snipped, but making someone retrieve an earlier post to find context
is rude. Sure, I can do it, but you shouldn't make me have to do it.
(Not that you do routinely or - in my opinion - maliciously)


My sarcasm meter just went off the charts.

--
PeterN

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Of course I snipped. The polite thing to do is snip away what is not
being responded to in order to make the response more readable.

tell peter that.

Well, you see, this is an open forum and anyone can read anything
posted here. I don't have to *tell* Peter anything.

normally yes. however, he has a problem with understanding the concept.

What I've seen Peter object to is snipping that removes context that
changes the meaning of what remains. Whether or not you agree that
removed context changes something is dependant on the individual
instance.

i do not remove anything that changes context, but if someone is
confused, the references are intact so someone can easily retrieve what
was snipped. in other words, non-issue.

I don't have a complaint that you snip context that shouldn't be
snipped, but making someone retrieve an earlier post to find context
is rude. Sure, I can do it, but you shouldn't make me have to do it.
(Not that you do routinely or - in my opinion - maliciously)

i'm not making anyone do anything. you are once again twisting.

the context is always clear, but some people might want additional
details and they are welcome to pursue links to obtain it, with just
one click.

what's rude is *not* snipping extraneous text, forcing readers to wade
through unrelated material for what is invariably a brief comment.