Nora

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf0ZyoUn7Vk
0:59s
Donnie Brasco - Forget About It

A scene from Donnie Brasco where Johnny Depp explains
what "forget about it" means.

Not being a Noo Yawker, I can't comment on the authenticity
of the spelling or the pronunciation.

Google is your friend when it comes to spelling it:

furgedaboudit: 286 hits
fuggedaboudit: 41,600 hits

Pronunciation is highly localized, though

I am still waiting for an apology.

For what?

Is your memory that selectively short.

I don't know what "that" is in reference to here.

When I said you corrected my spelling of a non word, yu called me a
liar. If you thumb back, just today, you will see.

Huh? No, I asked you to support your claim that I:

PeterN


criticizing usage of American English, especially the
spelling of artificial words

You have yet to provide support for that claim - where I have
*criticized* the spelling of an "artificial word" (whatever that means).
Emphasize mine, so you'll know just what part I am questioning, you know
- like I did in my very first followup:

Sandman


when did I *criticize* the *spelling* of "artificial words"?

NO! I really expect a weasel out. But If you are a gentlemen, you
certainly would admit your error and apologize.

Like you admitted to your error and apologized for making claims you
can't or won't back up, Peter? Just like that? I'm still waiting.


--
Sandman[.net]

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?

Ah, so just ignore it is the selected approach eh?

Why can't you answer the question, Sid? Why weasel like this? It's a
straight forward question, and since it follows an explicit claim of
yours, it should be easy to just answer it? Why the games, Sid?

What is it that I am supposed to be "right" about, in your view? To be
right, I surely must have made a claim that I have yet to support,
right? But you're responding to a sub thread where the discussion is
about a claim that *Peter* has made that he has yet to support. Ironic,
I should say.

So, stop with the game playing and just answer the question.

--
Sandman[.net]

Sandman wrote:

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?

Ah, so just ignore it is the selected approach eh?

Why can't you answer the question, Sid? Why weasel like this? It's a
straight forward question, and since it follows an explicit claim of
yours, it should be easy to just answer it? Why the games, Sid?

What is it that I am supposed to be "right" about, in your view? To be
right, I surely must have made a claim that I have yet to support,
right? But you're responding to a sub thread where the discussion is
about a claim that *Peter* has made that he has yet to support. Ironic,
I should say.

So, stop with the game playing and just answer the question.

I'm not playing games or weaseling, unlike you! You know full well what was
being refered to, you snipped it out before replying to me. Pretending to
ignore the facts does not make them go away in the eyes of those all around
you.

--
sid

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?

Ah, so just ignore it is the selected approach eh?

Why can't you answer the question, Sid? Why weasel like this? It's a
straight forward question, and since it follows an explicit claim of
yours, it should be easy to just answer it? Why the games, Sid?

What is it that I am supposed to be "right" about, in your view? To be
right, I surely must have made a claim that I have yet to support,
right? But you're responding to a sub thread where the discussion is
about a claim that *Peter* has made that he has yet to support. Ironic,
I should say.

So, stop with the game playing and just answer the question.

I'm not playing games or weaseling, unlike you! You know full well what was
being refered to, you snipped it out before replying to me. Pretending to
ignore the facts does not make them go away in the eyes of those all around
you.

I snipped away things Tony had written, yes. Is it your claim that Tony
had written about something I need to be "right" about? Because I don't
read what Tony writes since he is a troll and a proven liar. So if Tony
had written what I am supposed to be right about, you need to write it
again.

Why do you continue to weasel? You failed to answer the question yet
again, Sid.

What exactly is it that I am supposed to be "right" about, Sid? I'm
asking you, not Tony. Your claim, you answer.

Stop with your games and just answer the question.

--
Sandman[.net]

If all of you would keep to photography, digital photography at that, it
would give our Delete keys a bit of a rest!
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

In article ,
David Taylor wrote:

If all of you would keep to photography, digital photography at that, it
would give our Delete keys a bit of a rest!

Haha, indeed!


--
Sandman[.net]

On 8/31/2013 2:18 AM, Sandman wrote:
In article ,
PeterN wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf0ZyoUn7Vk
0:59s
Donnie Brasco - Forget About It

A scene from Donnie Brasco where Johnny Depp explains
what "forget about it" means.

Not being a Noo Yawker, I can't comment on the authenticity
of the spelling or the pronunciation.

Google is your friend when it comes to spelling it:

furgedaboudit: 286 hits
fuggedaboudit: 41,600 hits

Pronunciation is highly localized, though

I am still waiting for an apology.

For what?

Is your memory that selectively short.

I don't know what "that" is in reference to here.

When I said you corrected my spelling of a non word, yu called me a
liar. If you thumb back, just today, you will see.

Huh? No, I asked you to support your claim that I:

PeterN


criticizing usage of American English, especially the
spelling of artificial words

You have yet to provide support for that claim - where I have
*criticized* the spelling of an "artificial word" (whatever that means).
Emphasize mine, so you'll know just what part I am questioning, you know
- like I did in my very first followup:

Sandman


when did I *criticize* the *spelling* of "artificial words"?

NO! I really expect a weasel out. But If you are a gentlemen, you
certainly would admit your error and apologize.

Like you admitted to your error and apologized for making claims you
can't or won't back up, Peter? Just like that? I'm still waiting.



Your claim of my "admission" of error, comes from either your:
ignorance; stubbornness; or malevolence. I have no evidence as to which
of the possibilities.

--
PeterN

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

Your claim of my "admission" of error, comes from either your:
ignorance; stubbornness; or malevolence.

I can't seem to find that claim, Peter. Or do you mean this one:

Sandman


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

That was a conclusion I made when you changed your claim from
"criticize" to "correct", so I took it that you admitted that I hadn't
criticized your spelling at all.

--
Sandman[.net]

Sandman wrote:

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?

Ah, so just ignore it is the selected approach eh?

Why can't you answer the question, Sid? Why weasel like this? It's a
straight forward question, and since it follows an explicit claim of
yours, it should be easy to just answer it? Why the games, Sid?

What is it that I am supposed to be "right" about, in your view? To be
right, I surely must have made a claim that I have yet to support,
right? But you're responding to a sub thread where the discussion is
about a claim that *Peter* has made that he has yet to support. Ironic,
I should say.

So, stop with the game playing and just answer the question.

I'm not playing games or weaseling, unlike you! You know full well what
was being refered to, you snipped it out before replying to me.
Pretending to ignore the facts does not make them go away in the eyes of
those all around you.

I snipped away things Tony had written, yes. Is it your claim that Tony
had written about something I need to be "right" about? Because I don't
read what Tony writes since he is a troll and a proven liar. So if Tony
had written what I am supposed to be right about, you need to write it
again.

Stop being a prick and own up. I've already quoted the proof that you're
full of ****, Eric has posted the same, Tony has posted the same, Savageduck
and pensive hamster have both quoted the same as I.

Why do you continue to weasel? You failed to answer the question yet
again, Sid.

What exactly is it that I am supposed to be "right" about, Sid? I'm
asking you, not Tony. Your claim,

I don't think you'll find that I have claimed anything other than you're
full of ****.

you answer.

Done that. You snipped it.

Stop with your games and just answer the question.

You're the only one playing games and trying to twist out of owning up


--
sid

In article ,
sid wrote:

snip trolling

I see you had nothing more to add but more antagonizing and game playing.

Have a nice day, Sid. Don't expect me to take anything you say seriously
from now on.



--
Sandman[.net]