Rich's reviews "Highly Questionable" is highly questionable

Rich wrote:
On Jul 29, 11:05*pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
RichA wrote:
Both cameras got "highly recommended." *Evidently, it's a highly
flexible attribution.

We'll be looking forward to your detailed review that justifies your
slander.

IQ letting you down again? The problem wasn't the review, it was the
scoring of the review relative to others.

You don't have a problem with the review - It's the review that you
don't like.

Got it.

You're an idiot.

--
Ray Fischer

Twibil wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:

IQ letting you down again? *The problem wasn't the review, it was the
scoring of the review relative to others.

You don't have a problem with the review - It's the review that you
don't like.

Got it.

You're an idiot.

Well, no, from a disinterested observer's point of view his point is
perfectly valid, but *you* don't seem to understand it.

He doesn't like the review. He isn't smart enough to find anything
wrong with it so he whines about the conclusion.

--
Ray Fischer

On 7/30/09 2:25 AM, in article
, "Twibil"
wrote:

On Jul 29, 11:34*pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

IQ letting you down again? *The problem wasn't the review, it was the
scoring of the review relative to others.

You don't have a problem with the review - It's the review that you
don't like.

Got it.

You're an idiot.

Well, no, from a disinterested observer's point of view his point is
perfectly valid, but *you* don't seem to understand it.

These isn't much out there that Fischer *does* understand.

On 7/30/09 3:21 AM, in article , "Ray
Fischer" wrote:

Twibil wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:

IQ letting you down again? *The problem wasn't the review, it was the
scoring of the review relative to others.

You don't have a problem with the review - It's the review that you
don't like.

Got it.

You're an idiot.

Well, no, from a disinterested observer's point of view his point is
perfectly valid, but *you* don't seem to understand it.

He doesn't like the review. He isn't smart enough to find anything
wrong with it so he whines about the conclusion.

POT = KETTLE

George Kerby wrote:
"Twibil"
On Jul 29, 11:34*pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

IQ letting you down again? *The problem wasn't the review, it was the
scoring of the review relative to others.

You don't have a problem with the review - It's the review that you
don't like.

Got it.

You're an idiot.

Well, no, from a disinterested observer's point of view his point is
perfectly valid, but *you* don't seem to understand it.

These isn't much out there that Fischer *does* understand.

Obviously, you are unable to reply in a manner that would be considered
reasonable to most folks: Just insults like a spoiled five year old. You
just can't do any better. Sad.
kerby in

--
Ray Fischer

Twibil wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:

Well, no, from a disinterested observer's point of view his point is
perfectly valid, but *you* don't seem to understand it.

He doesn't like the review. *He isn't smart enough to find anything
wrong with it so he whines about the conclusion.

Ah, got it.

But how odd that you only seem able to read the minds of people you
don't like,

How odd that you seem to think that I'm "reading minds" when everyone
can see him complaining about the conclusion.

--
Ray Fischer

Twibil wrote:
On Jul 30, 11:03*pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Well, no, from a disinterested observer's point of view his point is
perfectly valid, but *you* don't seem to understand it.

He doesn't like the review. *He isn't smart enough to find anything
wrong with it so he whines about the conclusion.

Ah, got it.

But how odd that you only seem able to read the minds of people you
don't like,

How odd that you seem to think that I'm "reading minds" when everyone
can see him complaining about the conclusion.

Oh, not odd at all. Follow the bouncing ball...

Is this where you profess the ability to read minds?

Firstly, you made a statement: "He isn't smart enough to find anything
wrong with it so he whines about the conclusion." Now that could be
either (A) mind-reading on your part or (B) a simple flame based on
your fondest wishes and desires, but one having little or nothing to
do with objective reality.

It's a reasonably objective opinion based upon observing his past behavior.

But you weren't _quite_ smart enough to consider that possibility.

--
Ray Fischer

On 7/31/09 12:01 PM, in article ,
"Ray Fischer" wrote:

Twibil wrote:
On Jul 30, 11:03*pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Well, no, from a disinterested observer's point of view his point is
perfectly valid, but *you* don't seem to understand it.

He doesn't like the review. *He isn't smart enough to find anything
wrong with it so he whines about the conclusion.

Ah, got it.

But how odd that you only seem able to read the minds of people you
don't like,

How odd that you seem to think that I'm "reading minds" when everyone
can see him complaining about the conclusion.

Oh, not odd at all. Follow the bouncing ball...

Is this where you profess the ability to read minds?

Firstly, you made a statement: "He isn't smart enough to find anything
wrong with it so he whines about the conclusion." Now that could be
either (A) mind-reading on your part or (B) a simple flame based on
your fondest wishes and desires, but one having little or nothing to
do with objective reality.

It's a reasonably objective opinion based upon observing his past behavior.

But you weren't _quite_ smart enough to consider that possibility.
In your mind, FishBreath, NO one is as smart as you. Only in your own
mind...

Twibil wrote:
On Jul 31, 10:01*am, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

How odd that you seem to think that I'm "reading minds" when everyone
can see him complaining about the conclusion.

Oh, not odd at all. Follow the bouncing ball...

Is this where you profess the ability to read minds?

Er, no, it's where I employ a thing called "logic". See below. \I/

Firstly, you made a statement: "He isn't smart enough to find anything
wrong with it so he whines about the conclusion." Now that could be
either (A) mind-reading on your part or (B) a simple flame based on
your fondest wishes and desires, but one having little or nothing to
do with objective reality.

It's a reasonably objective opinion based upon observing his past behavior.

Free hint: We don't usually go to someone's enemies when we want to
get an objective opinion.

Non sequitur.

Neither do we go to his best friends. We go
to someone who's going to be objective.

And that's not you.

So you do try to read minds after all.

But you weren't _quite_ smart enough to consider that possibility.

The problem with relying on good old Usenet cliche' #3 ("You're
stupid") is that it's just another masturbatory fantasy -unless
perchance it's based on fact.

Look in the mirror.

--
Ray Fischer

Twibil wrote:
On Jul 31, 8:16*pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

How odd that you seem to think that I'm "reading minds" when everyone
can see him complaining about the conclusion.

Oh, not odd at all. Follow the bouncing ball...

Is this where you profess the ability to read minds?

Er, no, it's where I employ a thing called "logic". See below. \I/

Firstly, you made a statement: "He isn't smart enough to find anything
wrong with it so he whines about the conclusion." Now that could be
either (A) mind-reading on your part or (B) a simple flame based on
your fondest wishes and desires, but one having little or nothing to
do with objective reality.

It's a reasonably objective opinion based upon observing his past behavior.

Free hint: We don't usually go to someone's enemies when we want to
get an objective opinion.

Non sequitur.

Um, only if you don't know what "non-sequitur" means, and apparently
you don't.

I certainly do, and I even know that it's not hyphenated. But if you
think that your comment is relevant then let's see your explanation.

Neither do we go to his best friends. We go
to someone who's going to be objective.

And that's not you.

So you do try to read minds after all.

No, I just read posts and understand their content.

Ditto.

For instance:
yours from earlier in the thread have quite clearly demonstrated that
you dislike RichA,

I dislike dishonest bigots.

so therefore you fall into the "his enemies"
category and no opinion of yours concerning him can be said to be
objective.

And so nothing you say about me is objective.

--
Ray Fischer