I'll assume you're talking to me. Since you didn't include any quoted
material with an attribution, I have no context for what you're
rambling on about.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'll assume that you're talking to me. Since you didn't bother to
include any quoted material with an attribution, I have to deduce, and
I have no context for what you're rambling on about. I'm not going to
go crawl through my archives and try to figure it out.
> why must something contain quoted material to be true? or to be a
> good idea?
It doesn't have to. Who said it did?
Responses need quoted material so that people know what you're talking
about. Nobody searches back through archives to try to deduce who
or what you're refering to.
> why do you have to be another tool in the world?
I use tools. I suppose that if "human resources" are considered tools,
I both use and am used.
> why are you just blindly
> following others' opinions instead of actually using your brain and thinking
> for yourself?
I'm not. Who said I was? Whose opinions are I blindly following? You
must be talking about someone else. Maybe you're refering to the
Cypherpunks mailing list at large.
> if you were, you wouldn't need quoted material to let someone
> else make your mind up for you.
No, I and everyone else needs quoted material to know what the hell
you're talking about.
Why can't you AOLholes grasp this concept of quotation? It's been
what, five years at least?
> and though your comments are not witty or
> even at least ammusing, i will respond to them...
Who is the "you" to which you refer? Me? What comments? Comments I
made six months ago? Comments someone else made? Comments I quoted in
a response to someone else? Comments from the archives? Presumably you
refer to the comments I made a few hours ago to you.
> and i will have you know, i
> am not one of those loser little 14 yr old dorks trying to make bombs or
> writing letters with the text "will you teach me how to hack", etc.
Ah. You could have fooled me. The grammatical structures are similar
enough to the other trolls we've been getting.
> and i am
> not an old fat guy with a mustache looking for pics. of 6 yr old girls.
Ah, okay. I'm glad you cleared that up. I really dislike those old fat
guys with mustaches.
> probably not to far off from your life style, huh?
Actually, no. That could describe what my lifestyle isn't, I
suppose. I'm not one of those "loser little 14 yr old dorks trying to
make bombs or writing letters with the text 'will you teach me how to
hack', etc." and "i am not an old fat guy with a mustache looking for
pics. of 6 yr old girls." Therefore, your statement is accurate for
its scope.
> but at least i do agree with you on one thing - the american education system
> and aol do suck. (that is why i had a seperate isp. but unfortunately there
> is only so mcuh i can try to do to fix the horrible condition of the
> education system)
Perhaps you aren't in a position to fix the education system, no more
than the rest of us are in a particularly powerful position which
enables us to fix it. You can try to educate yourself, however. I
would suggest beginning with various FAQs on how to use e-mail and
news, and on the concepts of quotation and attribution.
I'm afraid that changing ISPs won't fix the wetware problem you
apparently have, though.
> so maybe now you can talk to me maturely instead of making immature and
> irrelevant remarks towards me and others who are mearly posting their
> opinion.
I play it like a computer. Stupid dumbass comments in, stupid
smart-ass sarcastic remarks out. Now if you ever bother to exhibit a
clue, I daresay I will force a civil answer out of myself.
> i hope you will get a fucking life and stop being such an idiot.
Likewise, though I believe the "fucking idiot" would be the guy who
doesn't provide context for his comments so that people know what he's
talking about.
