On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 23:18:34 +0100, Jellby <jel### [at] M-yahoocom>
wrote:

>Among other things, IMBJR wrote:
>
>>>>>You could save even more bandwidth by posting just a link to wherever
>>>>>you choose to upload the file.
>>>> 
>>>> I'd still get some saying they could not see the file after following
>>>> the link - so thanks for the suggestion, but it's not going to solve
>>>> that particular problem.
>>>
>>>Wrong!
>>>
>>>Read my post again. I didn't suggest to solve *that* problem, but the
>>>bandwidth problem (which is one of the reasons you're using JPEG2000, you
>>>said). I really think you should read the discussion before you jump with
>>>unrelated answers. ;)
>> 
>> Don't be silly. Your parroting back of my arguments just points you
>> out as another one of the crowd hell bent on being obtuse for
>> obtuseness sake.
>
>Parrots are nice animals :)

Some are, and some are nut-greedy little peckers.

>
>Yes, poor me, I was being ironic.

You do not have the verbal skills in this medium to be ironic. I bet
you use emoticons!

> I had a very small hope you would 
>understand how annoying some of your comments could be... However, the fact 
>remains, I was referring to the possibility of saving bandwidth and storage 
>space, and not to the "ease of use" of the format. And please, note that I 
>have *not* insulted you, you have (tried to do so).

That bracketted stutter at the end suggests otherwise. Did I hurt your
widdle feelings, uh?


--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com

Post a reply to this message

Among other things, IMBJR wrote:

>>Parrots are nice animals :)
> 
> Some are, and some are nut-greedy little peckers.

So, you're trying to call me a "nut-greedy little pecker"? You could have 
been more direct from the beginning...

>>Yes, poor me, I was being ironic.
> 
> You do not have the verbal skills in this medium to be ironic. I bet
> you use emoticons!

My verbal skills are not the best at the west of this river. And English is 
not my first language. You're very perceptive.

>> I had a very small hope you would
>>understand how annoying some of your comments could be... However, the
>>fact remains, I was referring to the possibility of saving bandwidth and
>>storage space, and not to the "ease of use" of the format. And please,
>>note that I have *not* insulted you, you have (tried to do so).
> 
> That bracketted stutter at the end suggests otherwise. Did I hurt your
> widdle feelings, uh?

Yep, you hurt me plenty. I feel like a little puppy at your feet. I can only 
wish you'll enlighten me with your wisdom... Actually, I feel so deeply 
wounded I don't think I can keep my poor little meaningless life. Or maybe 
not, it is said that the beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so is the 
offense in the mind of the listener.

 > /dev/null

-- 
light_source{9+9*x,1}camera{orthographic look_at(1-y)/4angle 30location
9/4-z*4}light_source{-9*z,1}union{box{.9-z.1+x clipped_by{plane{2+y-4*x
0}}}box{z-y-.1.1+z}box{-.1.1+x}box{.1z-.1}pigment{rgb<.8.2,1>}}//Jellby

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 00:55:58 +0100, Jellby <jel### [at] M-yahoocom>
wrote:

>Among other things, IMBJR wrote:
>
>>>Parrots are nice animals :)
>> 
>> Some are, and some are nut-greedy little peckers.
>
>So, you're trying to call me a "nut-greedy little pecker"? You could have 
>been more direct from the beginning...

Oh, sorry. I didn't want to go that far on the first date.

>
>>>Yes, poor me, I was being ironic.
>> 
>> You do not have the verbal skills in this medium to be ironic. I bet
>> you use emoticons!
>
>My verbal skills are not the best at the west of this river. And English is 
>not my first language. You're very perceptive.

Well, you could have fooled me. At least you have a fairly good grasp
of it, just not the ironic grasp.

>
>>> I had a very small hope you would
>>>understand how annoying some of your comments could be... However, the
>>>fact remains, I was referring to the possibility of saving bandwidth and
>>>storage space, and not to the "ease of use" of the format. And please,
>>>note that I have *not* insulted you, you have (tried to do so).
>> 
>> That bracketted stutter at the end suggests otherwise. Did I hurt your
>> widdle feelings, uh?
>
>Yep, you hurt me plenty. I feel like a little puppy at your feet. I can only 
>wish you'll enlighten me with your wisdom... Actually, I feel so deeply 
>wounded I don't think I can keep my poor little meaningless life. Or maybe 
>not, it is said that the beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so is the 
>offense in the mind of the listener.

See how heavy-handed you have to be with your irony? It just doesn't
work. At let's say, for one tiny second that this aint irony - how can
one tell, you just don't have the flare to impart your message.

PS.  Pure flame? No there was impurities all the way through.

--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com

Post a reply to this message

"Skip Talbot" <sta### [at] uiucedu> wrote in message
news:404cd6be$1@news.povray.org...

> To throw gasoline on the fire of course.  :)

LOL... Better than throwing another log on the fire ;)

Post a reply to this message

"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
news:dmop40lc06i3hvs7jedlt2jj4p74e992st@4ax.com...
> >>     I appreciate the work that goes into them.
> >
> >heh, thank you for that considered and informative opinion. ;)
>
> I think he was referring to the work I put in them. Taking credit for
> my effort is yet another sign of the stupidity I see in this group.

Okay: point 1 - don't call me stupid.
point 2 - I WASN'T taking credit, I DID get what he was saying: I was pointing
out the fact that what he said was something of a non-statement. It would apply
equally regardless of whether or not the pictures were any good (which is what I
was attempting to ascertain), so I believe his statement was a joke, wittily
avoiding answering my question, thus I replied sarcastically thanking him for
his "answer".

God honestly, if you want to call people stupid you should make sure you know
what they're saying.

-- 
Tek
www.evilsuperbrain.com

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 21:36:27 -0800, "Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom>
wrote:

>"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
>news:dmop40lc06i3hvs7jedlt2jj4p74e992st@4ax.com...
>> >>     I appreciate the work that goes into them.
>> >
>> >heh, thank you for that considered and informative opinion. ;)
>>
>> I think he was referring to the work I put in them. Taking credit for
>> my effort is yet another sign of the stupidity I see in this group.
>
>Okay: point 1 - don't call me stupid.

Re-read. I refered to the group in general as stupid ("stupidity I see
in this group"). If you take that as directed at you personally then
you did so off your own bat.

>point 2 - I WASN'T taking credit, I DID get what he was saying: I was pointing
>out the fact that what he said was something of a non-statement. It would apply
>equally regardless of whether or not the pictures were any good (which is what I
>was attempting to ascertain), so I believe his statement was a joke, wittily
>avoiding answering my question, thus I replied sarcastically thanking him for
>his "answer".

People here are generally not capable of getting that sort of detail
across in their posts. Though I don't blame the group for this. It is
extremely difficult to get such things across. We are mostly all
amateur writers, incapable of expressing ourselves with such
distinction. Usnet is a difficult medium for subtle flavours to be
imparted.

>
>God honestly, if you want to call people stupid you should make sure you know
>what they're saying.

I did. And that's why this group is in general stupid. Stupidity of
the mass, as it were.

--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com

Post a reply to this message

"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
news:ml9s40pbquu74smg1ka7d7klvqbqhqg1s0@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 21:36:27 -0800, "Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom>
> wrote:
>
> >"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
> >news:dmop40lc06i3hvs7jedlt2jj4p74e992st@4ax.com...
> >> >>     I appreciate the work that goes into them.
> >> >
> >> >heh, thank you for that considered and informative opinion. ;)
> >>
> >> I think he was referring to the work I put in them. Taking credit for
> >> my effort is yet another sign of the stupidity I see in this group.
> >
> >Okay: point 1 - don't call me stupid.
>
> Re-read. I refered to the group in general as stupid ("stupidity I see
> in this group"). If you take that as directed at you personally then
> you did so off your own bat.

<and so forth />

Wow, I'm catching up more on these threads and this is interesting.
Everybody is stupid in something, like Scott Adams said. For example, many
would have a case to say IMBJR that you're stupid when it comes to tact.
Thing is, does being stupid in that one thing make you stupid in general?

Post a reply to this message

"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
news:ml9s40pbquu74smg1ka7d7klvqbqhqg1s0@4ax.com...
> >> I think he was referring to the work I put in them. Taking credit for
> >> my effort is yet another sign of the stupidity I see in this group.
> >
> >Okay: point 1 - don't call me stupid.
>
> Re-read. I refered to the group in general as stupid ("stupidity I see
> in this group"). If you take that as directed at you personally then
> you did so off your own bat.

You referred to my post as a "sign of stupidity", I take that as being directed
at me.

> >God honestly, if you want to call people stupid you should make sure you know
> >what they're saying.
>
> I did.

No you didn't: you said I was taking credit for your work, which I wasn't.

-- 
Tek
www.evilsuperbrain.com

Post a reply to this message

> Thing is, does being stupid in that one thing make you stupid in general?

In his defence I think IMBJR's referring specifically to how people conduct
themselves when posting on this newsgroup, and he is not implying this extends
to how intelligent these people are in general.

-- 
Tek
www.evilsuperbrain.com

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 9 Mar 2004 18:34:09 -0600, "Dan P" <dan### [at] yahoocom>
wrote:

>"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
>news:ml9s40pbquu74smg1ka7d7klvqbqhqg1s0@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 21:36:27 -0800, "Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
>> >news:dmop40lc06i3hvs7jedlt2jj4p74e992st@4ax.com...
>> >> >>     I appreciate the work that goes into them.
>> >> >
>> >> >heh, thank you for that considered and informative opinion. ;)
>> >>
>> >> I think he was referring to the work I put in them. Taking credit for
>> >> my effort is yet another sign of the stupidity I see in this group.
>> >
>> >Okay: point 1 - don't call me stupid.
>>
>> Re-read. I refered to the group in general as stupid ("stupidity I see
>> in this group"). If you take that as directed at you personally then
>> you did so off your own bat.
>
><and so forth />
>
>Wow, I'm catching up more on these threads and this is interesting.
>Everybody is stupid in something, like Scott Adams said. For example, many
>would have a case to say IMBJR that you're stupid when it comes to tact.
>Thing is, does being stupid in that one thing make you stupid in general?

That's like saying im lemon when it comes to tact, or fishburger, or
housetree or coupon when it comes to tact. Meaningless!

>

--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com

Post a reply to this message