Calumet files Chapter 7

On 3/29/2014 1:17 PM, Sandman wrote:
In article , PeterN wrote:

Savageduck:
Perhaps a virtual inundation of substantiations was meant to
imply a metaphoric onslaught. ...maybe a flood, or even a
plethora of substantiations might end up described so?

Sandman:
Or maybe just a large quantity of substantiations that Tony has
had a hard time coping with? I.e. what actually has happened
everytime I've used the word.

Only the times when you use an inappropriate word.

You are free to point to any such time, Peter. Be my guest. I am happy to
be corrected when I make mistakes. Be sure to point to the post of my
inappropiate usage and substantiation for how and why it was inappropriate.

I'm waiting.



Just look at and read any of your postings in which Tony orI corrected
your English. And that's as far as I go with you English lesson.

--
PeterN

On 2014-03-30 01:26:20 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 19:32:06 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 3/29/2014 1:17 PM, Sandman wrote:
In article , PeterN wrote:

Savageduck:
Perhaps a virtual inundation of substantiations was meant to
imply a metaphoric onslaught. ...maybe a flood, or even a
plethora of substantiations might end up described so?

Sandman:
Or maybe just a large quantity of substantiations that Tony has
had a hard time coping with? I.e. what actually has happened
everytime I've used the word.

Only the times when you use an inappropriate word.

You are free to point to any such time, Peter. Be my guest. I am happy to
be corrected when I make mistakes. Be sure to point to the post of my
inappropiate usage and substantiation for how and why it was inappropriate.

I'm waiting.



Just look at and read any of your postings in which Tony orI corrected
your English. And that's as far as I go with you English lesson.

The Popinjay will never admit to error. He uses a Catch 22 form of
logic in this area. For example, he maintains that to substantiate a
claim that someone ignored a valid point in a post, you must cite
something in which that person declared they were omitting reference
to that point. In other words, you must show where the person
acknowledged the point to show that the person ignored the point. We
are no better off than Yossarian in following this kind of logic.

"Help him! Help the bombardier." "...but I am the bombardier."

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2014-03-30 02:43:20 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 19:27:12 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-03-30 01:26:20 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 19:32:06 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 3/29/2014 1:17 PM, Sandman wrote:
In article , PeterN wrote:

Savageduck:
Perhaps a virtual inundation of substantiations was meant to
imply a metaphoric onslaught. ...maybe a flood, or even a
plethora of substantiations might end up described so?

Sandman:
Or maybe just a large quantity of substantiations that Tony has
had a hard time coping with? I.e. what actually has happened
everytime I've used the word.

Only the times when you use an inappropriate word.

You are free to point to any such time, Peter. Be my guest. I am happy to
be corrected when I make mistakes. Be sure to point to the post of my
inappropiate usage and substantiation for how and why it was inappropriate.

I'm waiting.



Just look at and read any of your postings in which Tony orI corrected
your English. And that's as far as I go with you English lesson.

The Popinjay will never admit to error. He uses a Catch 22 form of
logic in this area. For example, he maintains that to substantiate a
claim that someone ignored a valid point in a post, you must cite
something in which that person declared they were omitting reference
to that point. In other words, you must show where the person
acknowledged the point to show that the person ignored the point. We
are no better off than Yossarian in following this kind of logic.

"Help him! Help the bombardier." "...but I am the bombardier."

I read a lot of books, but I rarely read a book the second time. Out
of choice, that is. I have been known to take out a book from library
and get well into it before I realize I've read it years before.

I have a pretty good idea of my completed reading list, and there are a
few authors of fiction I will read again and again, because I enjoy a
particular piece of their work. There are many who do not get a second
chance, particularly when their research fails the tale.

"Catch 22" is the one book that I read over-and-over. Not
front-to-back as I normally read a book, but with Catch 22 I can open
the book at any page, start reading, and be able to follow the story
from memory. A very tattered paperback copy sits on my nightstand.

I have a few books I consider worthy of rereading, but most of those
are non-fiction & biography and have become for me, reference works.

It is the same copy that I read for the first time in the early 1960s
when living in Chicago. I'd read the book on the El and stop reading
when I was laughing too hard to continue to read. Sometimes I'd put
the book down, sit there for five or six minutes, and then start
laughing just remembering what I'd read.

Quite often the seats near me on the El remained empty. People just
didn't want to sit next to a person who burst out in laughter for no
apparent reason.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , PeterN wrote:

Savageduck:
Perhaps a virtual inundation of substantiations
was meant to imply a metaphoric onslaught. ...maybe a flood,
or even a plethora of substantiations might end up described
so?

Sandman:
Or maybe just a large quantity of substantiations
that Tony has had a hard time coping with? I.e. what actually
has happened everytime I've used the word.

PeterN:
Only the times when you use an inappropriate word.

Sandman:
You are free to point to any such time, Peter. Be my guest. I am
happy to be corrected when I make mistakes. Be sure to point to
the post of my inappropiate usage and substantiation for how and
why it was inappropriate.

I'm waiting.

Just look at and read any of your postings in which Tony orI
corrected your English.

There is none to look at that meet that criteria.

And that's as far as I go with you English
lesson.

So, you have nothing. I knew that of course.



--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

Savageduck:
Perhaps a virtual inundation of
substantiations was meant to imply a metaphoric onslaught.
...maybe a flood, or even a plethora of substantiations
might end up described so?

Sandman:
Or maybe just a large quantity of substantiations
that Tony has had a hard time coping with? I.e. what
actually has happened everytime I've used the word.

PeterN:
Only the times when you use an inappropriate word.

Sandman:
You are free to point to any such time, Peter. Be my guest. I am
happy to be corrected when I make mistakes. Be sure to point to
the post of my inappropiate usage and substantiation for how and
why it was inappropriate.

I'm waiting.

PeterN:
Just look at and read any of your postings in which Tony orI
corrected your English. And that's as far as I go with you English
lesson.

The Popinjay will never admit to error.

Indeed you won't. I, on the other hand, are free and willing to admit to
errors, and have done so many times. Do you wish substantiations for that
claim, Andreas?

He uses a Catch 22 form of logic in this area. For example, he maintains
that to substantiate a claim that someone ignored a valid point in a
post, you must cite something in which that person declared they were
omitting reference to that point.

Indeed. You on the other hand, use illogic, such as:

Tony Cooper
03/25/2014 08:09:46 PM

"If it isn't stated, it's ignored."

In other words, you must show where the person acknowledged the point to
show that the person ignored the point.

Incorrect. Good example of your rabid illogic though.

We are no better off than Yossarian in following this kind of logic.

You wouldn't know logic if it ran you over. That's why you *REPEATEDLY*
snipped out my explanations and logical reasoning regarding this topic that
didn't fit your trolling agenda.



--
Sandman[.net]

On 3/30/2014 3:49 AM, Sandman wrote:
In article , PeterN wrote:

Savageduck:
Perhaps a virtual inundation of substantiations
was meant to imply a metaphoric onslaught. ...maybe a flood,
or even a plethora of substantiations might end up described
so?

Sandman:
Or maybe just a large quantity of substantiations
that Tony has had a hard time coping with? I.e. what actually
has happened everytime I've used the word.

PeterN:
Only the times when you use an inappropriate word.

Sandman:
You are free to point to any such time, Peter. Be my guest. I am
happy to be corrected when I make mistakes. Be sure to point to
the post of my inappropiate usage and substantiation for how and
why it was inappropriate.

I'm waiting.

Just look at and read any of your postings in which Tony orI
corrected your English.

There is none to look at that meet that criteria.

Wrong

And that's as far as I go with you English
lesson.

So, you have nothing. I knew that of course.




Wrong
--
PeterN

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

Sandman:
You are free to point to any such time, Peter. Be my
guest. I am happy to be corrected when I make mistakes. Be
sure to point to the post of my inappropiate usage and
substantiation for how and why it was inappropriate.

I'm waiting.

PeterN:
Just look at and read any of your postings in which Tony orI
corrected your English.

Sandman:
There is none to look at that meet that criteria.

Here's one for you, then. "There is none..." is a gross error.

"gross", huh? I'm way past at taking you at face value, so you need more
than just a claim here, Andreas.

If I adopted your juvenile style of writing, I'd add "Hilarious",
"haha", or "Ironic".

Poor Andreas.




--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

Tony Cooper:
The Popinjay will never admit to error.

Sandman:
Indeed you won't. I, on the other hand, are free and willing to
admit to errors, and have done so many times. Do you wish
substantiations for that claim, Andreas?

Thanks for the laugh, Popinjay. "I...are free"? That's your idea
of correct English?

What was that you said about "juvenile style", Andreas? As I said, I make
errors and I admit to errors. I have no pride invested in my spelling or
grammar, so I can freely admit to making errors, like I did here.

Only people like you derive pleasure from deriding mistakes when they come
from people you have an agenda against.

Tony Cooper:
We are no better off than Yossarian in following this kind of
logic.

Sandman:
You wouldn't know logic if it ran you over. That's why you
*REPEATEDLY* snipped out my explanations and logical reasoning
regarding this topic that didn't fit your trolling agenda.

I didn't see any reasonable or logical explanations.

You are lying, since you deliberately snipped it out.

I did see some totally illogical and incorrect attempts to justify a
faulty position.

Incorrect.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

Sandman:
You wouldn't know logic if it ran you over. That's why you
*REPEATEDLY* snipped out my explanations and logical reasoning
regarding this topic that didn't fit your trolling agenda.

I'll make one more attempt to explain this to you, and then I'm
through.

You're never through, you'll continue to lie and troll until you die.

If a subject is addressed, and an aspect of that subject is not
included, that aspect can be said to be "ignored".

No, this is incorrect. It could be any of these:

1. Forgotten
2. Overlooked
3. Ignored
4. Missed

It doesn't make any difference at all if the aspect was not covered by
intent, by accident, by lack of knowledge of that aspect, or for any
other reason.

Incorrect. Ignoring something is a deliberate action that requires
knowledge about the item you are ignoring. You can not ignore something
that you have forgotten, missed or overlooked

You seem to be under the impression that there must be a deliberate
act if something is ignored.

No, I am not under that "impression", I know that to be a fact.

That's not the case. The use of "ignored", in this context, simply means
omitted, not there, not covered.

All of those words or phrases *can*, but do not necessarily, require
a deliberate action. Something can be omitted or left out
deliberately or omitted by accident.

No, you can not ignore something by accident, Andreas.

Your "logical reasons" do not apply to how the word is actually used
and accepted by all native speakers of English. Your conclusion is
completely contrary to established usage.

You don't know how the word is actually used or "accepted", and you have no
credibility in any English usage to claim any knowledge about word usage.

nospam ignored an aspect of online vs brick-and-mortar transactions.

So you claim, you have yet to provide ANY support for that claim.

Whether it was ignored deliberately, because he didn't consider it,
because he wasn't aware of it, or for any other reason, the aspect
was ignored in his post.

Incorrect.

ignore
verb
refuse to take notice of or acknowledge; disregard intentionally

The above needs no substantiation. It's a way the word is used by
those who understand how the word is used.

Incorrect.

It makes no mind that you don't understand it. No amount of
argumentative nonsense from you will change the fact that it is used, and
used correctly, this way.

Incorrect.

Substantiation from Sandman: Lots
Substantiation from Andreas: None




--
Sandman[.net]

In article , PeterN wrote:

Savageduck:
Perhaps a virtual inundation of
substantiations was meant to imply a metaphoric
onslaught. ...maybe a flood, or even a plethora of
substantiations might end up described so?

Sandman:
Or maybe just a large quantity of substantiations
that Tony has had a hard time coping with? I.e. what
actually has happened everytime I've used the word.

PeterN:
Only the times when you use an inappropriate word.

Sandman:
You are free to point to any such time, Peter. Be my
guest. I am happy to be corrected when I make mistakes. Be
sure to point to the post of my inappropiate usage and
substantiation for how and why it was inappropriate.

I'm waiting.

PeterN:
Just look at and read any of your postings in which Tony orI
corrected your English.

Sandman:
There is none to look at that meet that criteria.

Wrong

Incorrect.

PeterN:
And that's as far as I go with you English lesson.

Sandman:
So, you have nothing. I knew that of course.

Wrong

Incorrect.

--
Sandman[.net]