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
  #131  
Old August 31st 13, 11:16 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
sid[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 385
Default Nora

Sandman wrote:

In article ,
sid wrote:

snip trolling


True to form, snip the bits you don't want to acknowledge and label the
poster a troll. How is it that everyone that disagrees with you is a troll?

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


The truth is a bit uncomfortable for you then?

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


Oh, I'm sorry, I think you must have mistaken me for someone who gives a
**** what you think.

--
sid
  #132  
Old August 31st 13, 11:38 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,246
Default Nora

On 8/31/2013 3:26 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sat, 31 Aug 2013 19:11:50 +0100, sid wrote:

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


The truth will get you killfiled.


He who denies the truth can never be wrong

--
PeterN
  #133  
Old September 1st 13, 12:05 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Nora

On 2013-08-31 15:38:12 -0700, PeterN said:

On 8/31/2013 3:26 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sat, 31 Aug 2013 19:11:50 +0100, sid wrote:

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


The truth will get you killfiled.


He who denies the truth can never be wrong


I believe the tactic in use here is "Tu quoque".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #134  
Old September 1st 13, 07:09 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default Nora

In article ,
sid wrote:

snip trolling


True to form, snip the bits you don't want to acknowledge and label the
poster a troll. How is it that everyone that disagrees with you is a troll?


What did you supposedly disagree with, Sid?

I asked you a question, for four posts now you have refused to answer
that question. Why would I need to keep responding to your ad hominem's
and evasions over and over again?

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


The truth is a bit uncomfortable for you then?


What supposed "truth", Sid? I would think that refusal to answer one
simple question is a good sign of being uncomfortable.



--
Sandman[.net]
  #135  
Old September 1st 13, 06:17 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
sid[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 385
Default Nora

Sandman wrote:

In article ,
sid wrote:

snip trolling


True to form, snip the bits you don't want to acknowledge and label the
poster a troll. How is it that everyone that disagrees with you is a
troll?


What did you supposedly disagree with, Sid?


At this point, pretty much everything about you.

I asked you a question, for four posts now you have refused to answer
that question.


Mindless repetition is about all you're good at isn't it?

Why would I need to keep responding to your ad hominem's


I don't think there were any ad hominems, I would have said it was plain old
name calling.

and evasions over and over again?


It's hard to convince you of anything if you pretend not to have read the
post you are replying to all the time.

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


The truth is a bit uncomfortable for you then?


What supposed "truth", Sid? I would think that refusal to answer one
simple question is a good sign of being uncomfortable.


This never was about me though was it? You seem to be trying to make a
discussion about you calling Peter a liar and being proven wrong into
something about a claim that I am suppossed to have made. That's bizzare.


--
sid
  #136  
Old September 2nd 13, 06:29 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default Nora

In article ,
sid wrote:

snip trolling

True to form, snip the bits you don't want to acknowledge and label the
poster a troll. How is it that everyone that disagrees with you is a
troll?


What did you supposedly disagree with, Sid?


At this point, pretty much everything about you.


So you can't give a direct answer to that question either, can you? You
made the connection that me labeling someone a troll is somehow
connected to that person disagreeing with me. Disagreement is usually
when person A has an opinion and person B does not share that opinion.

What opinion of mine did you express disagreement with, Sid?

It seems to me that you're just throwing out as much ad hominem's as
possible right now, while I am the one asking perfectly reasonable
question pertaining to the claims you've made.

snip trolling

The truth is a bit uncomfortable for you then?


What supposed "truth", Sid? I would think that refusal to answer one
simple question is a good sign of being uncomfortable.


This never was about me though was it?


It was about your claim about me:

sid


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

And I asked you - right about what? As it is, you can't answer that
question, which is quite telling.

You seem to be trying to make a discussion about you calling Peter a
liar and being proven wrong


Huh? I called Peter a liar when he failed to support the claim he had
made while at the same time refusing to admit to it being made in error.
I agree that "liar" is a bit rich, but "complete idiot" isn't much
better. I gave him the benefit of a doubt and made him seem a bit more
intelligent than the alternative. I.e. I can only accept a person to
make the same mistake so many times before I have to conclude that it is
intentional.

And when was this supposedly "proven wrong", Sid? Are you again making
claims you can't support, or won't support?

You *really* should step out of this thread, you're way out of your
league.



--
Sandman[.net]
  #137  
Old September 2nd 13, 10:25 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Nora

On Mon, 02 Sep 2013 07:29:27 +0200, Sandman wrote:

In article ,
sid wrote:

snip trolling

True to form, snip the bits you don't want to acknowledge and label the
poster a troll. How is it that everyone that disagrees with you is a
troll?

What did you supposedly disagree with, Sid?


At this point, pretty much everything about you.


So you can't give a direct answer to that question either, can you? You
made the connection that me labeling someone a troll is somehow
connected to that person disagreeing with me. Disagreement is usually
when person A has an opinion and person B does not share that opinion.

What opinion of mine did you express disagreement with, Sid?

It seems to me that you're just throwing out as much ad hominem's as
possible right now, while I am the one asking perfectly reasonable
question pertaining to the claims you've made.

snip trolling

The truth is a bit uncomfortable for you then?

What supposed "truth", Sid? I would think that refusal to answer one
simple question is a good sign of being uncomfortable.


This never was about me though was it?


It was about your claim about me:

sid


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

And I asked you - right about what? As it is, you can't answer that
question, which is quite telling.

You seem to be trying to make a discussion about you calling Peter a
liar and being proven wrong


Huh? I called Peter a liar when he failed to support the claim he had
made while at the same time refusing to admit to it being made in error.
I agree that "liar" is a bit rich, but "complete idiot" isn't much
better. I gave him the benefit of a doubt and made him seem a bit more
intelligent than the alternative. I.e. I can only accept a person to
make the same mistake so many times before I have to conclude that it is
intentional.

And when was this supposedly "proven wrong", Sid? Are you again making
claims you can't support, or won't support?

You *really* should step out of this thread, you're way out of your
league.


At heart, Sandman is a really unpleasant piece of moose droppings.

I would hate to do business with him, even with a lawyer.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #138  
Old September 2nd 13, 01:21 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,246
Default Nora

On 9/2/2013 1:29 AM, Sandman wrote:
In article ,
sid wrote:

snip trolling

True to form, snip the bits you don't want to acknowledge and label the
poster a troll. How is it that everyone that disagrees with you is a
troll?

What did you supposedly disagree with, Sid?


At this point, pretty much everything about you.


So you can't give a direct answer to that question either, can you? You
made the connection that me labeling someone a troll is somehow
connected to that person disagreeing with me. Disagreement is usually
when person A has an opinion and person B does not share that opinion.

What opinion of mine did you express disagreement with, Sid?

It seems to me that you're just throwing out as much ad hominem's as
possible right now, while I am the one asking perfectly reasonable
question pertaining to the claims you've made.

snip trolling

The truth is a bit uncomfortable for you then?

What supposed "truth", Sid? I would think that refusal to answer one
simple question is a good sign of being uncomfortable.


This never was about me though was it?


It was about your claim about me:

sid


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

And I asked you - right about what? As it is, you can't answer that
question, which is quite telling.

You seem to be trying to make a discussion about you calling Peter a
liar and being proven wrong


Huh? I called Peter a liar when he failed to support the claim he had
made while at the same time refusing to admit to it being made in error.
I agree that "liar" is a bit rich, but "complete idiot" isn't much
better. I gave him the benefit of a doubt and made him seem a bit more
intelligent than the alternative. I.e. I can only accept a person to
make the same mistake so many times before I have to conclude that it is
intentional.

And when was this supposedly "proven wrong", Sid? Are you again making
claims you can't support, or won't support?

You *really* should step out of this thread, you're way out of your
league.




So you close your eyes, and then complain you cannot see. Pathetic.

--
PeterN
  #139  
Old September 2nd 13, 01:39 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,246
Default Nora

On 9/2/2013 5:25 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:

snip


At heart, Sandman is a really unpleasant piece of moose droppings.

I would hate to do business with him, even with a lawyer.


Before getting involved in a business deal, I would take someone out for
a round of golf. During 18 holes of golf, they revealed a lot about
their personality and ethics. I then had some idea about what I was
getting into.
I read Sandman as being pathetically insecure. That is just my read
based upon my life experience of dealing with people.
Just one example: The secure people I know, and associate with would not
find it necessary to tell a group of people they don't know, what new
toys they have just purchased. Yes one might seek opinions prior to
purchase, and evaluate them. But, not argue with the opinion giver.


--
PeterN
  #140  
Old September 2nd 13, 01:41 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default Nora

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

So you close your eyes, and then complain you cannot see. Pathetic.


Peter, if you're not going to stand up for your claims, please dont post
in this thread. You've made a big enough fool of yourself already.


Peter's original claim:

PeterN


It is not unfair when the Swedish person starts criticizing
usage of American English, especially the spelling of
artificial words

Me questioning that I ever criticized his spelling:

Sandman


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

Peter changing his claim:

PeterN


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




Still no apology for making a false claim about my actions.


--
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 06:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.