What to carry by default.

On 9/2/2015 11:46 AM, Pablo wrote:
PeterN wrote:

On 9/2/2015 10:16 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

I have pointed out many times when your snipping shows me
saying things I never said.

you might think you have, but you haven't at all.

the only attribution i leave is for the post to which i'm directly
responding.

everything else is *unattributed*. do you know what unattributed
means?

it means that anything beyond the first quote level has no
attribution, therefore it *can't* ever show you saying things you did
not say. it's simply not possible.

You falsely claim to leave the false
attributional in for context.

nope.

you're reading it wrong.

And you are the only one who is in step. :-(


The amazing thing is that according to the snip in this post, he had me
saying something I never said.

again, you need to learn how quoting works. nowhere did it say that you
said something you didn't. stop blaming others for your own stupidity.


Last time I looked when the top words say X said, followed by some
language. The clear English meaning is that X said the words that
follow

From http://www.anta.net/misc/nnq/nquote.shtml:


"Different numbers of "quote marks" () at the beginning of each line
indicate different quoting levels. Following one level of quote marks
upwards leads you to the attribution line for that level."

Also some stuff he

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ie...ection-3.2.2.1


That is true. But nospam doesn't always follow conventions. When he
claims I have never pointed that out, he is outright lying.
On one hand he bleats that he doesn't capitalize because newsgroups are
informal, then in a blatant act of inconsistency, he relies on formal
rules when he snips to show misquoting. If there is an ambiguous method
he does it. When he is asked for clarification of what he means, more
times than not he either ignores the request, or falsely claims that he
answered the question. If one is going to rely on clarity conventions,
it is intellectually dishonest to pick and choose which convention he is
going to rely on. As a linguist, you can appreciate that there are
difficulties in communication between natives of different countries,
and even sometimes , even between natives of the same country. Imagine
the communication difficulties, if each communicator simply picks and
chooses his own conventions.

--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

You falsely claim to leave the false
attributional in for context.

nope.

you're reading it wrong.

And you are the only one who is in step. :-(


The amazing thing is that according to the snip in this post, he had me
saying something I never said.

again, you need to learn how quoting works. nowhere did it say that you
said something you didn't. stop blaming others for your own stupidity.


Last time I looked when the top words say X said, followed by some
language. The clear English meaning is that X said the words that
follow

From http://www.anta.net/misc/nnq/nquote.shtml:


"Different numbers of "quote marks" () at the beginning of each line
indicate different quoting levels. Following one level of quote marks
upwards leads you to the attribution line for that level."

Also some stuff he

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ie...ection-3.2.2.1


That is true.

in other words, you're contradicting yourself.

for it to be true means i'm not misquoting you.

But nospam doesn't always follow conventions.

maybe so, but this convention i do follow.

When he
claims I have never pointed that out, he is outright lying.

wrong.

it's you who is lying. either that or you're stupid.

On one hand he bleats that he doesn't capitalize because newsgroups are
informal, then in a blatant act of inconsistency, he relies on formal
rules when he snips to show misquoting.

i do not misquote. period.

you misread posts because you do not understand how quoting works.

worse, you refuse to learn, resulting in writing a lengthy paragraph
that tries to blame me for your own stupidity.

If there is an ambiguous method
he does it. When he is asked for clarification of what he means, more
times than not he either ignores the request, or falsely claims that he
answered the question.

more bull****.

If one is going to rely on clarity conventions,
it is intellectually dishonest to pick and choose which convention he is
going to rely on. As a linguist, you can appreciate that there are
difficulties in communication between natives of different countries,
and even sometimes , even between natives of the same country. Imagine
the communication difficulties, if each communicator simply picks and
chooses his own conventions.

imagine if someone could say "i learned how quoting works."

On 9/2/2015 4:01 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

You falsely claim to leave the false
attributional in for context.

nope.

you're reading it wrong.

And you are the only one who is in step. :-(


The amazing thing is that according to the snip in this post, he had me
saying something I never said.

again, you need to learn how quoting works. nowhere did it say that you
said something you didn't. stop blaming others for your own stupidity.


Last time I looked when the top words say X said, followed by some
language. The clear English meaning is that X said the words that
follow

From http://www.anta.net/misc/nnq/nquote.shtml:


"Different numbers of "quote marks" () at the beginning of each line
indicate different quoting levels. Following one level of quote marks
upwards leads you to the attribution line for that level."

Also some stuff he

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ie...ection-3.2.2.1


That is true.

in other words, you're contradicting yourself.

for it to be true means i'm not misquoting you.

But nospam doesn't always follow conventions.

maybe so, but this convention i do follow.

When he
claims I have never pointed that out, he is outright lying.

wrong.

it's you who is lying. either that or you're stupid.

Another nospamism. (excuse me while I barf)


On one hand he bleats that he doesn't capitalize because newsgroups are
informal, then in a blatant act of inconsistency, he relies on formal
rules when he snips to show misquoting.

i do not misquote. period.

you misread posts because you do not understand how quoting works.

worse, you refuse to learn, resulting in writing a lengthy paragraph
that tries to blame me for your own stupidity.


Most would prefer ignorance to arrogance.

If there is an ambiguous method
he does it. When he is asked for clarification of what he means, more
times than not he either ignores the request, or falsely claims that he
answered the question.

more bull****.


Classic and well thought retort.

If one is going to rely on clarity conventions,
it is intellectually dishonest to pick and choose which convention he is
going to rely on. As a linguist, you can appreciate that there are
difficulties in communication between natives of different countries,
and even sometimes , even between natives of the same country. Imagine
the communication difficulties, if each communicator simply picks and
chooses his own conventions.

imagine if someone could say "i learned how quoting works."


Except when it's misleading.

EOD Troll
--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

From http://www.anta.net/misc/nnq/nquote.shtml:


"Different numbers of "quote marks" () at the beginning of each line
indicate different quoting levels. Following one level of quote marks
upwards leads you to the attribution line for that level."

Also some stuff he

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ie...ection-3.2.2.1


That is true.

in other words, you're contradicting yourself.

for it to be true means i'm not misquoting you.

But nospam doesn't always follow conventions.

maybe so, but this convention i do follow.

When he
claims I have never pointed that out, he is outright lying.

wrong.

it's you who is lying. either that or you're stupid.

Another nospamism. (excuse me while I barf)

barfing is all you can manage.

i noticed you didn't comment about you contradicting yourself.

On one hand he bleats that he doesn't capitalize because newsgroups are
informal, then in a blatant act of inconsistency, he relies on formal
rules when he snips to show misquoting.

i do not misquote. period.

you misread posts because you do not understand how quoting works.

worse, you refuse to learn, resulting in writing a lengthy paragraph
that tries to blame me for your own stupidity.

Most would prefer ignorance to arrogance.

with you, they get both.

If there is an ambiguous method
he does it. When he is asked for clarification of what he means, more
times than not he either ignores the request, or falsely claims that he
answered the question.

more bull****.

Classic and well thought retort.

and completely accurate.

If one is going to rely on clarity conventions,
it is intellectually dishonest to pick and choose which convention he is
going to rely on. As a linguist, you can appreciate that there are
difficulties in communication between natives of different countries,
and even sometimes , even between natives of the same country. Imagine
the communication difficulties, if each communicator simply picks and
chooses his own conventions.

imagine if someone could say "i learned how quoting works."

Except when it's misleading.

there's nothing misleading.

EOD Troll

translated: you know you're wrong and won't admit it.