A
Alias
Flightless Bird
On 05/16/2010 03:49 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
> On Sat, 15 May 2010 16:078 +0200, Alias
> <aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:
>
>> John B. Slocomb wrote:
>>> On Sat, 15 May 2010 13:23:57 +0200, Alias
>>> <aka@hewhoismasked&anonymous.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 05/15/2010 04:53 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 15:46:50 +0200, Alias
>>>>> <aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> John B. Slocomb wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 126:07 +0200, Alias
>>>>>>> <aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jackie wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2010 03:06, John B. Slocomb wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Ah Jackie, you are learning about Alias. He posts some unsupported
>>>>>>>>>> slander about Windows and when someone rebuts his post complete with
>>>>>>>>>> quotes and references to demonstrate validity he replies with
>>>>>>>>>> irrelevancies.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It would be nice if he could actually try to back anything he says up
>>>>>>>>> even he doesn't have any reliable references, because it really is like
>>>>>>>>> you say. Technical details would be good so that we can see if it even
>>>>>>>>> sounds logical or not.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> OR, you could do your own research and see if what I am saying is true.
>>>>>>>> What is it about you Windows users that makes you think everyone has to
>>>>>>>> prove to you what they say is true?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I suppose because most of us prefer not to be lied to. If you
>>>>>>> don't/can't prove it how do we know that you aren't deliberately
>>>>>>> lying? And after you display your ignorance of computers a few times
>>>>>>> it is very difficult to accept that you know anything at all. Another
>>>>>>> reason is because many people are naturally polite and dislike saying
>>>>>>> "You are a liar" so instead that say something like "can you prove
>>>>>>> it?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And I don't believe that it is confined to Windows users, I doubt that
>>>>>>> many actually like to be lied to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John B. Slocomb
>>>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Double yawn.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I'm sure that you are correct. Telling the truth is a boring
>>>>> subject, isn't it? Certainly you appear to be much more inclined to
>>>>> tell lies then tell the truth.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or is it simple ignorance that you suffer from?
>>>>>
>>>>> John B. Slocomb
>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
>>>>
>>>> You can't reply to me without stating you are perfect and I am
>>>> imperfect, can you? You, sir, are a BORE and a very amateurish debater.
>>>
>>>
>>> You really are bad at the English language aren't you.
>>
>> First lie.
>>
>> < I talk about
>>> you telling lies and you say that I'm perfect?
>>
>> Second lie.
>
> You see, you prove my point that your English is faulty.
>
> I write that I talk about you telling lies and you say that I'm
> perfect"
> You call it a lie.
>
> I wrote, " Certainly you appear to be much more inclined to tell lies
> then tell the truth."
> You wrote, "You can't reply to me without stating you are perfect..."
>
> Then you state that I am lying when I repeat it.
> Alias, you either can't read or you have an extremely short memory.
> Or you are lying yet again.
>
>>>
>>> Perhaps using your standards I am... I don't tell lies.
>>
>> Third lie.
>
> Ah.. And what have I lied about?
>
>>> Does that make
>>> me a perfect person in your society?
>>>
>>> John B. Slocomb
>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
>>
>> You're far from perfect. You rely on ad hominem attacks for your
>> "arguments". That's very amateurish.
>
> Are you really saying that when you expose your complete ignorance
> about Windows (the kernel is the Registry) and Linux (based on the
> desktop environment) and I state that you don't know what you are
> talking about, that is a personal attack?
>
> Either you don't actually know what the Latin means or you are simply
> trying to cover up your ignorance.
>
> An ad hominem (Latin: "argument toward the person" or "argument
> against the person"), is an argument which links the validity of a
> premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the
> premise.
> In other words, if I argue that because you are a "dirty rat" your
> evidence that you saw me rob the bank is not valid.
>
> But that is not what happened. You made a totally erroneous statement
> and I stated that you demonstrated your ignorance of the subject by
> making that statement.
> Hardly a personal attack, rather a statement of fact.
>
> John B. Slocomb
> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
If you can't see that you constantly use personal attacks to make your
"argument", I can't help you. If you can't see how picky you're being
and using that to distract from the main issue, I can't help you. In
fact, I doubt anyone can.
--
Alias
> On Sat, 15 May 2010 16:078 +0200, Alias
> <aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:
>
>> John B. Slocomb wrote:
>>> On Sat, 15 May 2010 13:23:57 +0200, Alias
>>> <aka@hewhoismasked&anonymous.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 05/15/2010 04:53 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 15:46:50 +0200, Alias
>>>>> <aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> John B. Slocomb wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 126:07 +0200, Alias
>>>>>>> <aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jackie wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2010 03:06, John B. Slocomb wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Ah Jackie, you are learning about Alias. He posts some unsupported
>>>>>>>>>> slander about Windows and when someone rebuts his post complete with
>>>>>>>>>> quotes and references to demonstrate validity he replies with
>>>>>>>>>> irrelevancies.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It would be nice if he could actually try to back anything he says up
>>>>>>>>> even he doesn't have any reliable references, because it really is like
>>>>>>>>> you say. Technical details would be good so that we can see if it even
>>>>>>>>> sounds logical or not.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> OR, you could do your own research and see if what I am saying is true.
>>>>>>>> What is it about you Windows users that makes you think everyone has to
>>>>>>>> prove to you what they say is true?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I suppose because most of us prefer not to be lied to. If you
>>>>>>> don't/can't prove it how do we know that you aren't deliberately
>>>>>>> lying? And after you display your ignorance of computers a few times
>>>>>>> it is very difficult to accept that you know anything at all. Another
>>>>>>> reason is because many people are naturally polite and dislike saying
>>>>>>> "You are a liar" so instead that say something like "can you prove
>>>>>>> it?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And I don't believe that it is confined to Windows users, I doubt that
>>>>>>> many actually like to be lied to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John B. Slocomb
>>>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Double yawn.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I'm sure that you are correct. Telling the truth is a boring
>>>>> subject, isn't it? Certainly you appear to be much more inclined to
>>>>> tell lies then tell the truth.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or is it simple ignorance that you suffer from?
>>>>>
>>>>> John B. Slocomb
>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
>>>>
>>>> You can't reply to me without stating you are perfect and I am
>>>> imperfect, can you? You, sir, are a BORE and a very amateurish debater.
>>>
>>>
>>> You really are bad at the English language aren't you.
>>
>> First lie.
>>
>> < I talk about
>>> you telling lies and you say that I'm perfect?
>>
>> Second lie.
>
> You see, you prove my point that your English is faulty.
>
> I write that I talk about you telling lies and you say that I'm
> perfect"
> You call it a lie.
>
> I wrote, " Certainly you appear to be much more inclined to tell lies
> then tell the truth."
> You wrote, "You can't reply to me without stating you are perfect..."
>
> Then you state that I am lying when I repeat it.
> Alias, you either can't read or you have an extremely short memory.
> Or you are lying yet again.
>
>>>
>>> Perhaps using your standards I am... I don't tell lies.
>>
>> Third lie.
>
> Ah.. And what have I lied about?
>
>>> Does that make
>>> me a perfect person in your society?
>>>
>>> John B. Slocomb
>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
>>
>> You're far from perfect. You rely on ad hominem attacks for your
>> "arguments". That's very amateurish.
>
> Are you really saying that when you expose your complete ignorance
> about Windows (the kernel is the Registry) and Linux (based on the
> desktop environment) and I state that you don't know what you are
> talking about, that is a personal attack?
>
> Either you don't actually know what the Latin means or you are simply
> trying to cover up your ignorance.
>
> An ad hominem (Latin: "argument toward the person" or "argument
> against the person"), is an argument which links the validity of a
> premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the
> premise.
> In other words, if I argue that because you are a "dirty rat" your
> evidence that you saw me rob the bank is not valid.
>
> But that is not what happened. You made a totally erroneous statement
> and I stated that you demonstrated your ignorance of the subject by
> making that statement.
> Hardly a personal attack, rather a statement of fact.
>
> John B. Slocomb
> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
If you can't see that you constantly use personal attacks to make your
"argument", I can't help you. If you can't see how picky you're being
and using that to distract from the main issue, I can't help you. In
fact, I doubt anyone can.
--
Alias