A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Nora



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old August 29th 13, 03:56 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,246
Default Nora

On 8/29/2013 10:43 AM, Sandman wrote:
In article ,
PeterN wrote:

So, liar then. Gotcha.


Hur kan du säga: "du har en vad jag hoppas är en behandlingsbar complex"
är Svenska?

My grammar may be wrong, but my meaning is clear.


So to you, the one asking the person that made the claim is the one
needing treatment? Not the one that made the claim but can't support it?

Whatever, it's not like you have any credibility left.

You really need to leran the difference between cannot and will not. To
me it is not worth the effort.

EOD.

I already know your response, since you seem compelled to have the last
word. Take it. You have a free pass.

--
PeterN
  #102  
Old August 29th 13, 04:03 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default Nora

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

Whatever, it's not like you have any credibility left.


You really need to leran the difference between cannot and will not. To
me it is not worth the effort.


Yes, your credibility is not worth the effort. I know what you said is
incorrect and you refuse to support it, so to me you are lying.

Either way, you have no credibility. Either you're an idiot that makes
claims you refuse to support or you're a liar. At no point in this
thread have you been a reasonable person. You attack me and make
incorrect claims and then you just go "whatever".

Why don't you have the maturity to just say that you may have been
mistaken and you won't look it up anyway and apologize? Why this
obsession with always being right but NEVER offering any support?

Get help, seriously, Peter.



--
Sandman[.net]
  #103  
Old August 29th 13, 05:18 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Nora

On 2013-08-29 09:06:40 -0700, Tony Cooper said:

On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 14:57:55 +0200, Sandman wrote:

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

It is not unfair when the Swedish person starts criticizing usage of
American English, especially the spelling of artificial words. Please
don't start that one again.

Peter, please, when did I *criticize* the *spelling* of "artificial
words"? I expect a link to this critique in your followup or admission
of making an incorrect claim. Failing both makes you a liar, just so you
know.

furgedaboudit.
I am too lazy to find the ink, where you "corrected" my spelling.

So you admit to having made an incorrect claim then. Good.

That is not a factual statement. You are too bright to have forgotten
your posting. As I said, it is not worth my tim to go back,mor reply
further to your provocations


*my* provocations, Peter? Are you not the one that posted *about me* in
response to another poster, making incorrect claims?

And you say that *I* provoke *YOU*? The mind boggles.

You claimed that I had criticized the spelling of an "artificial word",
and you have openly admitted that you will not support that claim, yet
claim you won't admit to it being in error - which makes you a liar.
I.e. you have made a statement that you know you can not support.

Stop making such statements, Peter. I will call you on them every time,
especially when they're about me.


At 10:50 AM on 2013/08/13, PeterN wrote:

"So as far as further discussions along this line:
furgedaboudit. Believe it or not, that is real word in some parts of
New York."

At 1:00 PM on 2013/08/13, "Sandman" wrote:

"No it isn't. It's slang, and written as "fuggedaboudit", so you
couldn't even get that right. Slang expressions aren't "real words".
The very definition of slang is that it consists of non-standard and
informal words and terms, and referencing slang as a valid definition
of "pejorative" is beyond laughable."

So, this exchange establishes that a) Peter spelled it
"furgedaboudit", and b) Jonas criticized the spelling.


I was just about to make a similar response. I recall that little
exchange quite well.

Who's the liar now?

Slang words are, of course, "real words". If it exists, it's real.
When we use slang, we are using words that exist.

The term in question, though, falls in a gray area. It's not a real
word, not a non-standard word, not an informal word, and not a slang
term. It a representation of several words joined together as one
phrase as some people pronounce them. Since it is pronounced
differently by different people, there is no "correct" way to spell it
or "incorrect" way to spell it. Jonas' version is just one way to
pronounce the group of words mashed together.

Some people in Brooklyn, where the term is frequently used, have their
own version of "correct", and it is not the same as either Peter's or
Jonas':

http://www.brooklyn.com/faqanswer-102.html

I invite Jonas to show us a sign where the Malmö spelling is used, and
that his version is that version.


Jonas protects himself from correction of his blatant
misrepresentations by killfiling those who can and do correct him, but
it's a patently sad way to cover up.



--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #104  
Old August 29th 13, 07:55 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
sid[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 385
Default Nora

Tony Cooper wrote:

On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 09:18:40 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-08-29 09:06:40 -0700, Tony Cooper said:

On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 14:57:55 +0200, Sandman wrote:

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

It is not unfair when the Swedish person starts criticizing usage
of American English, especially the spelling of artificial words.
Please don't start that one again.

Peter, please, when did I *criticize* the *spelling* of "artificial
words"? I expect a link to this critique in your followup or
admission of making an incorrect claim. Failing both makes you a
liar, just so you know.

furgedaboudit.
I am too lazy to find the ink, where you "corrected" my spelling.

So you admit to having made an incorrect claim then. Good.

That is not a factual statement. You are too bright to have forgotten
your posting. As I said, it is not worth my tim to go back,mor reply
further to your provocations

*my* provocations, Peter? Are you not the one that posted *about me* in
response to another poster, making incorrect claims?

And you say that *I* provoke *YOU*? The mind boggles.

You claimed that I had criticized the spelling of an "artificial word",
and you have openly admitted that you will not support that claim, yet
claim you won't admit to it being in error - which makes you a liar.
I.e. you have made a statement that you know you can not support.

Stop making such statements, Peter. I will call you on them every time,
especially when they're about me.

At 10:50 AM on 2013/08/13, PeterN wrote:

"So as far as further discussions along this line:
furgedaboudit. Believe it or not, that is real word in some parts of
New York."

At 1:00 PM on 2013/08/13, "Sandman" wrote:

"No it isn't. It's slang, and written as "fuggedaboudit", so you
couldn't even get that right. Slang expressions aren't "real words".
The very definition of slang is that it consists of non-standard and
informal words and terms, and referencing slang as a valid definition
of "pejorative" is beyond laughable."

So, this exchange establishes that a) Peter spelled it
"furgedaboudit", and b) Jonas criticized the spelling.


I was just about to make a similar response. I recall that little
exchange quite well.

Who's the liar now?

Slang words are, of course, "real words". If it exists, it's real.
When we use slang, we are using words that exist.

The term in question, though, falls in a gray area. It's not a real
word, not a non-standard word, not an informal word, and not a slang
term. It a representation of several words joined together as one
phrase as some people pronounce them. Since it is pronounced
differently by different people, there is no "correct" way to spell it
or "incorrect" way to spell it. Jonas' version is just one way to
pronounce the group of words mashed together.

Some people in Brooklyn, where the term is frequently used, have their
own version of "correct", and it is not the same as either Peter's or
Jonas':

http://www.brooklyn.com/faqanswer-102.html

I invite Jonas to show us a sign where the Malmö spelling is used, and
that his version is that version.


Jonas protects himself from correction of his blatant
misrepresentations by killfiling those who can and do correct him, but
it's a patently sad way to cover up.


Since you are not in Jonas' killfile, and he may have read this post,
he's now aware that he has falsely stated that Peter is liar.

I look forward to the retraction and abject apology that Jonas will
soon post. Unless, of course, he pretends not have seen this or
attempts to weasel and claim that "you couldn't even get that right"
is not a spelling correction.

Bets, anyone?


I am sat here wondering what approach he's going to take to try and make
himself right this time.
--
sid
  #105  
Old August 29th 13, 08:18 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Nora

On 2013-08-29 11:22:15 -0700, Tony Cooper said:

On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 09:18:40 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-08-29 09:06:40 -0700, Tony Cooper said:

On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 14:57:55 +0200, Sandman wrote:

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

It is not unfair when the Swedish person starts criticizing usage of
American English, especially the spelling of artificial words. Please
don't start that one again.

Peter, please, when did I *criticize* the *spelling* of "artificial
words"? I expect a link to this critique in your followup or admission
of making an incorrect claim. Failing both makes you a liar, just so you
know.

furgedaboudit.
I am too lazy to find the ink, where you "corrected" my spelling.

So you admit to having made an incorrect claim then. Good.

That is not a factual statement. You are too bright to have forgotten
your posting. As I said, it is not worth my tim to go back,mor reply
further to your provocations

*my* provocations, Peter? Are you not the one that posted *about me* in
response to another poster, making incorrect claims?

And you say that *I* provoke *YOU*? The mind boggles.

You claimed that I had criticized the spelling of an "artificial word",
and you have openly admitted that you will not support that claim, yet
claim you won't admit to it being in error - which makes you a liar.
I.e. you have made a statement that you know you can not support.

Stop making such statements, Peter. I will call you on them every time,
especially when they're about me.

At 10:50 AM on 2013/08/13, PeterN wrote:

"So as far as further discussions along this line:
furgedaboudit. Believe it or not, that is real word in some parts of
New York."

At 1:00 PM on 2013/08/13, "Sandman" wrote:

"No it isn't. It's slang, and written as "fuggedaboudit", so you
couldn't even get that right. Slang expressions aren't "real words".
The very definition of slang is that it consists of non-standard and
informal words and terms, and referencing slang as a valid definition
of "pejorative" is beyond laughable."

So, this exchange establishes that a) Peter spelled it
"furgedaboudit", and b) Jonas criticized the spelling.


I was just about to make a similar response. I recall that little
exchange quite well.

Who's the liar now?

Slang words are, of course, "real words". If it exists, it's real.
When we use slang, we are using words that exist.

The term in question, though, falls in a gray area. It's not a real
word, not a non-standard word, not an informal word, and not a slang
term. It a representation of several words joined together as one
phrase as some people pronounce them. Since it is pronounced
differently by different people, there is no "correct" way to spell it
or "incorrect" way to spell it. Jonas' version is just one way to
pronounce the group of words mashed together.

Some people in Brooklyn, where the term is frequently used, have their
own version of "correct", and it is not the same as either Peter's or
Jonas':

http://www.brooklyn.com/faqanswer-102.html

I invite Jonas to show us a sign where the Malmö spelling is used, and
that his version is that version.


Jonas protects himself from correction of his blatant
misrepresentations by killfiling those who can and do correct him, but
it's a patently sad way to cover up.


Since you are not in Jonas' killfile, and he may have read this post,
he's now aware that he has falsely stated that Peter is liar.

I look forward to the retraction and abject apology that Jonas will
soon post. Unless, of course, he pretends not have seen this or
attempts to weasel and claim that "you couldn't even get that right"
is not a spelling correction.

Bets, anyone?


I have a feeling that this little repost is just going to be ignored.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #106  
Old August 29th 13, 08:41 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default Nora

In article [email protected],
Savageduck wrote:

I have a feeling that this little repost is just going to be ignored.


Everything Tony posts is ignored, as he know very well


--
Sandman[.net]
  #107  
Old August 29th 13, 11:13 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Nora

On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 14:57:55 +0200, Sandman wrote:

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

It is not unfair when the Swedish person starts criticizing usage of
American English, especially the spelling of artificial words. Please
don't start that one again.

Peter, please, when did I *criticize* the *spelling* of "artificial
words"? I expect a link to this critique in your followup or admission
of making an incorrect claim. Failing both makes you a liar, just so you
know.

furgedaboudit.
I am too lazy to find the ink, where you "corrected" my spelling.

So you admit to having made an incorrect claim then. Good.


That is not a factual statement. You are too bright to have forgotten
your posting. As I said, it is not worth my tim to go back,mor reply
further to your provocations


*my* provocations, Peter? Are you not the one that posted *about me* in
response to another poster, making incorrect claims?

And you say that *I* provoke *YOU*? The mind boggles.

You claimed that I had criticized the spelling of an "artificial word",
and you have openly admitted that you will not support that claim, yet
claim you won't admit to it being in error - which makes you a liar.
I.e. you have made a statement that you know you can not support.


I would say the twisting contained in that paragraph above makes you a
liar. The article which PeterN can't be bothered finding is
Message-ID: , Date: Tue,
13 Aug 2013 19:00:53 +0200. Subject: Ken Rockwell and his "Pro"
friends...

[PeterN]
" So as far as further discussions along this line: furgedaboudit.
Believe it or not, that is real word in some parts of New York.


[Sandman]
No it isn't. It's slang, and written as "fuggedaboudit", so you
couldn't even get that right. Slang expressions aren't "real
words". The very definition of slang is that it consists of
non-standard and informal words and terms ... "

Stop making such statements, Peter. I will call you on them every time,
especially when they're about me.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #108  
Old August 29th 13, 11:20 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Nora

On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 16:43:09 +0200, Sandman wrote:

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

So, liar then. Gotcha.


Hur kan du säga: "du har en vad jag hoppas är en behandlingsbar complex"
är Svenska?

My grammar may be wrong, but my meaning is clear.


So to you, the one asking the person that made the claim is the one
needing treatment? Not the one that made the claim but can't support it?

Whatever, it's not like you have any credibility left.


You really are a Dork!

Not once but several times you have interpreted Peter saying he can't
be bothered substantiating something or other as meaning that Peter is
a liar! I don't think you have a memory problem and know very well
what you have said in the past. Rather than admit that PeterN is
correct you twist and turn and play games with words in attempt to
justify you calling him a liar.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #109  
Old August 29th 13, 11:24 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Nora

On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 21:41:24 +0200, Sandman wrote:

In article [email protected],
Savageduck wrote:

I have a feeling that this little repost is just going to be ignored.


Everything Tony posts is ignored, as he know very well


No matter how much money he spends on cameras Sandman remains a little
person.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #110  
Old August 30th 13, 06:04 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default Nora

In article ,
sid wrote:

I am sat here wondering what approach he's going to take to try and make
himself right this time.


Right about what, Sid?


--
Sandman[.net]
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2022 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.