Print

Print


At 09:44 PM 3/3/00 +1200, Jean-Marc wrote:
>"Robert F. Ling" wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I snipped the first part because it was a JOKE that was quite
>> irrelevant to your OOA story about the instructor.  You mean
>> this don't you? :

>> See the <G> there?  It was irrelevant in the first place.


>What a convenient piece of snipping. The whole quote is :
>"Jean-Marc, when confronted by a gang of Scuba-L'ers with BIG
>CLUBS in hand regarding his stance on OOA (such as endorsing
>cutting the HP hose <G>), took refuge behind da Feesh by FAKING:"

Okay, so does your full quote ADD?

Yes, the whole PARAGRAPH was a JOKE, about you missing the LESSON
to be learned from discussing your intructor's OOA incident!
Perhaps it's a language problem on your part.  But you're pushing
this joke part far beyond rational limits.
>
>At least, I was able to make you write the following :
>
>"That was <snip> a serious allegation in the first place, <snip>
>I'll make you happy by admit I am <snip> wrong"

No problem, J.M., if that made you happy.  You did quite a bit
of CREATIVE snipping of my entire post, including the insertions
of "<snip>" twice to change the meaning of the quote.   No matter.

What matters is that you seemed to be oblivious to the LESSON you
should have learned, not only from that incident you reported, but
from what was discussed by OTHERS, including me.

                 You SHOULD NOT have snipped THIS
                    in my posting in question:

                  *****************************
>The bottom line on my reply to YOU was, and is, that YOU should
>have recognized you instructor's OOA at 35 m as a very avoidable
>situation that was a result of a GROSS ERROR on his part.
                  *****************************

The REDEEMING value (if we can call it that) of your silly challenge
for me to quote you on an item that was clearly a JOKE in the entire
context of the discussion, is that we (the readership) seem now to be
more AWARE of the importance of being able to QUOTE from a source,
and not rely on faulty memory.  I had no faulty memory in your case,
because I still have all your posts in the entire thread, and have
quoted from it as you DEMANDED, however frivolous that demand was.

But if Andy and I called Strike

              a spawney eyed parrot-faced wassock :-)

and you, or anyone else, pops in and make an issue of it, including
"that's NAME CALLING!";  "PROVE that Strike is spawney eyed"; ...
"QUOTE some source where it was shown that Strike is a 'wassock'",
then you have not only missed the ESSENCE of the proposed Guidelines
for a Responsible Discussant, you have missed whatever MESSAGE that
goes with the post that started with that JOKE.

You've done exactly that in your OOA challenges, relative to any
lessons to be learned from the OOA incident you reported.


Perhaps there SHOULD be a Guideline to avoid future mis-application
of discussion guidelines to JOKES.

Jean-Marc, your head is so far INTO the tree <G> that you've missed
the TREE, the FOREST, and everything relevant around it!

Please don't come back to challenge me that I am WRONG because
I can't prove that your head is "far INTO the tree" and that
there is no FOREST around you.

Remember another proposed Guideline, by Hugh, endorsed by many
others (including myself), but ridiculed by some, about this list
should be FUN?

Relax, J.M., and take a deep breath!  (Ob OOA ;-))

Extract the spirit and essence of the proposed Guidelines.  This
is not a court of law.  Besides, Dave Berry would have to spend
the rest of his life in court if he had to defend any of his JOKES.

-- Bob.