Paul White NZ (4/11/2010)
Psychic Tom strikes again! Not only did you "know" how much documentation I had checked earlier, you now "know" that I am 'quite clearly' distorting your words!
Of course I can know that without being psychic. I just have to look at what I wrote and at how you quote it, and observe that it is distorted.
How do you know that? Why would I do that? What would be my motivation?
As noted, I know it by observing it. However, it was unfair of me to say the distortion is deliberate and I withdraw that. I actually haven't a clue why you did it, I guess it has to be an error, so "deliberately"was unfair - as bad as some of your comments.
If you really want to know, I find your replies hard work: they are too long, and you do not communicate at all clearly. I don't have all day to try to decode what you write, you know.
Maybe they are too long - I think that's a side effect of the degree of irritation that you sometimes manage to induce in me. I think they are quite clear though, but obviously I'm not meeting the standard of clarity that you expect; you might take a moment to consider though that my reaction to some of your message may mean that I'm mistaking your meaning, perhaps because you are not meeting the standard of clarity that I expect.
Can you tell me how "it's incomplete. What there is of it is incorrect" means "not incorrect", how it means "incomplete" alone and doesn't suggest "incorrect"? Or even how it is unclear?
Yes Tom, I can. It is an unclear and bizarre construction. I'm not sure even you know what you mean here. Is it merely incomplete? Or is it incorrect? I don't know why you insist on writing two awkward sentences when a couple of words will do, really I don't. Do you do it intentionally?
Seriously I just don't know what to make of that. There are two statements. (1) It's incomplete. (2) What there is of it is incorrect. The phrase "What there is of it" is extremely common British and American English and means the available part of something incomplete; maybe this phrase isn't used n NZ? To me it's neither unclear nor bizarre, it's the sort of thing I have been used to seeing every day in books and journals and office memos throughout ny working life (and in emails, usenet posts, web pages, and blogs since those have existed).
The person who had asked for more explanation appeared to like it. That matters more to my than all your venemous ranting
Well, that's rich! I would invite you to read your own submissions before casting aspersions.
I guess it's fair repayment for your remarks about wriggling etcetera? In any case, I never cast nasturtiums, only their seeds.:-D
I, and probably most civilised people regard that sort of deliberate selection of part of a statement to give the impression that something was said that clearly was not said
Hmmm...civilised might be a bit strong, given your performance here. Look, I've already said that I have tried to be fair when quoting. Your responses are just far too long to quote in their entirety. If you feel you have been misquoted, I would invite you to consider whether that was really done deliberately and maliciously - or whether perhaps you might have been less than clear?
I don't expect you to quote everything - of course not. I do regard it as unacceptable to quote selectively in such a way as to totally distort or even reverse the meaning, and then base argument on the resulting straw man.
So you continue to distort.
All I said was that I tried to be fair, and you don't express yourself well. That is my genuine perception, and even 'psychic Tom' can't argue with that.
I suppose I have to accept that you tried to be fair if you say so; but I think you failed abysmally.
I think the statement you mangled was clear, and you deliberately chose to truncate it to give the impression that I had said something which I clearly diod not say.
No, Tom. You presume far too much. Your statement was not clear at all. I did not truncate it to misrepresent what I read.
As noted above, I find that pretty incomprehensible.
Then why did you say that your change from "wrong" to "pedantic" was a change in position?
I didn't - I thought you were referring to yourself in the following (complete) passage:
Exactly. It is the TYPE that is at issue. It can hardly be the LENGTH of an expression whose value is NULL, can it? It really irritates me that you keep on insisting that "LENGTH" is correct and that I'm wrong or pedantic (that does seem to be a bit of a retraction from wrong though, doesn't it) to say that it's the TYPE that matters, since you clearly do understand full well that it's the TYPE (and the length that is embedded in that TYPE) not the LENGTH of the argument that counts.
:Wow:
:laugh: Oh dear, I suggest you read it again: who does it say insisted that I was wrong or pedantic? Quite clearly it says you did, I think? So the person who changed from "wrong" to "pedantic" was you. Funny that you recognised it as a change in position when you mistakenly thought it was me, isn't it.
Maybe if you comment again I should reply in Gaelic :hehe:- then you won't be able to accuse me of being unclear or verbose, because I am the very model of clarity and brevity in that tongue. It is a language of such purity that only politicians can successfully be obscure and long-winded in it (and, of course, :-D17th century poets - but very many languages suffered from that problem). Or in Spanish, of which I don't know enough to be verbose (but would probably be very unclear:rolleyes:).
Anyway, all this is crazy - we both have more important things to do than to throw insults at each other and continue to quarrel over trivia.
Tom