Nora

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

Before getting involved in a business deal, I would take someone out for
a round of golf.

Any client that first wanted to take me out to golf wouldn't be a client
of mine

I read Sandman as being pathetically insecure.

It must be due to the numerous claims I make that I can neither support
nor admit to to be in error, I guess...

No wait, that's *YOU*, not me. Ironic.

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.

Huh? So posting about purchasing advice and then posting what was
purchased is "insecure" to you? You are a funny guy, Peter.

Yes one might seek opinions prior to purchase, and evaluate them.

Right, just as long as one does not follow that up with what was
actually purchased, right? because then you're insecure.

But, not argue with the opinion giver.

Oh, is this yet another explicit claim (that I have asked for an opinion
and then argued with the one giving their opinion) that you will not
support?






--
Sandman[.net]

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

Before getting involved in a business deal, I would take someone out for
a round of golf.

Any client that first wanted to take me out to golf wouldn't be a client
of mine

I read Sandman as being pathetically insecure.

It must be due to the numerous claims I make that I can neither support
nor admit to to be in error, I guess...

No wait, that's *YOU*, not me. Ironic.

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.

Huh? So posting about purchasing advice and then posting what was
purchased is "insecure" to you? You are a funny guy, Peter.

Yes one might seek opinions prior to purchase, and evaluate them.

Right, just as long as one does not follow that up with what was
actually purchased, right? because then you're insecure.

But, not argue with the opinion giver.

Oh, is this yet another explicit claim (that I have asked for an opinion
and then argued with the one giving their opinion) that you will not
support?

I can understand that


--
PeterN

On 9/2/2013 8:41 AM, Sandman wrote:
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.



I was waiting for one.
Bye

--
PeterN

On 9/2/2013 8:41 AM, Sandman wrote:
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.



I changed my mind!
I decided to apologize, to the group for wasting their time expecting
you to admit that you were wrong.

--
PeterN

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

On 9/2/2013 8:41 AM, Sandman wrote:
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.



I changed my mind!
I decided to apologize, to the group for wasting their time expecting
you to admit that you were wrong.

Wrong about what, Peter? I'll happily admit when I'm wrong, as I've done
many times. But it's good that you're apologizing, even if it isn't to
the person you attacked and antagonized.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

Oh, is this yet another explicit claim (that I have asked for an opinion
and then argued with the one giving their opinion) that you will not
support?

I can understand that

I have also understood that you make tons of claims that you won't
support.


--
Sandman[.net]

On 9/2/2013 11:10 AM, Sandman wrote:
In article ,
PeterN wrote:

Oh, is this yet another explicit claim (that I have asked for an opinion
and then argued with the one giving their opinion) that you will not
support?

I can understand that

I have also understood that you make tons of claims that you won't
support.


Your snipping to change context and meaning is intellectually dishonest.
And no! I am not going to waste my time doing a restoration. I have to
much photography to work on.

--
PeterN

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

Oh, is this yet another explicit claim (that I have asked for an opinion
and then argued with the one giving their opinion) that you will not
support?

I can understand that

I have also understood that you make tons of claims that you won't
support.

Your snipping to change context and meaning is intellectually dishonest.

Your reply followed one of my sentences, you ignored the other ones, so
I snipped those away. I snipped away my content while leaving your
content intact in relation to the paragraph of text to which you had
appended it.

Either way, I'm tired of your games.


--
Sandman[.net]

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?

Even though the above should have been enough, how about everything that
you've written in this thread in the last 4 days. All the lies, all the
twisting and turning, all the attempted deflection, all the deliberately
ignoring the bits you don't want to acknowledge, the lot. Clear enough.

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?

see above

It seems to me that you're just throwing out as much ad hominem's as
possible right now,

Who's making proposterous claims now then? You need to provide proof for
that otherwise you'll be a liar.

while I am the one asking perfectly reasonable
question pertaining to the claims you've made.

I'd like to see you disprove the one claim that I have explicity made.


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.

What a crock of made up, snivelling bull****.


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

snip it all you like, you've read it, we've all read it, it's there for ever
for everyone to see.

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

yer avin a laff entcha

--
sid

On Mon, 02 Sep 2013 08:39:53 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

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.

That was my conclusion also.

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.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens