| [News] Order on Plantiff's Motion in Thendic Amiga Case | ANN.lu |
| Posted on 18-Mar-2004 04:10 GMT by Rich Woods | 81 comments
View flat
View list | |
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 49 Plaintiff's Motion to Modify Order re 47 Court's Order Granting Specific Performance, by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(AF, ) (Entered: 03/17/2004)
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 49 Plaintiff's Motion to Modify Order re 47 Court's Order Granting Specific Performance, by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(AF, ) (Entered: 03/17/2004)<
Get it HERE
|
|
| List of all comments to this article |
| Order on Plantiff's Motion in Thendic Amiga Case : Comment 71 of 81 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Gregg on 19-Mar-2004 01:51 GMT | In reply to Comment 68 ():
> Thank you; that's very considerate of you.
If my post makes you stop and think, then it has served its purpose.
Yerrsss... Touch of pomposity there, wouldn't you say?
> Just so I can calibrate myself, as it were : could you indicate if, for instance, graham_nli's posts are less "nothing" than mine?
Frequency. Posts which bring nothing to the discussion (such as this one) occur but your many 'no value' contributions mark you out from the crowd. Maybe referring to the content of all your posts as 'nothing' was a little harsh. I apologise in anticipation of finding one with some useful content.
I'll confess that I may have been a little wordy, but I don't think its too hard to see that I have been trying to pin down people who make grand claims about "the truth", unsubstantiated by facts and peculiarly skewed by their subjective perception of reality. (Aside : Let's avoid a digression on the essential subjectivity of reality here). Do you think that such posts should just stand unchallenged? Or perhaps you believe that they are essentially true and I have just been jousting at windmills?
Put it another way : you have felt compelled to respond to me twice now because of some perceived uselessness in my posts that you feel the need to challenge; your posts are otherwise pointless themselves. Don't you think that similar motivation might be a valid justification for _my_ posts?
> How about yours? Are your posts not nothing by content, or merely by dint of being infrequent, or are they inherently substantive because of their underlying compassion and philanthropy? Just trying to get a sense of "nothing"...
Indeed, my posts are infrequent, I read, digest and absorb. Occasionally, I'll comment.
Jolly good; commendable restraint, for the most part.
Whether the majority or all of my posts are considered by readers as 'nothing' is for them to decide.
Indeed. No doubt you will feel that someone pointing out your posts as "nothing" will have an opinion of equal worth to your own.
It amuses me that your perceived command of the English language
"Perceived", eh? Please, your praise is too effusive - you're embarrassing me...
makes you somehow believe your superiority to anyone that deigns to confront you.
Whoaa there, hossy! You're reading an awful lot into my vocabulary, and extrapolating further. I certainly have no problem condescending to someone, but only (I believe) when they loudly espouse opinions and then refuse to defend them in any rational or honest way (some call that "trolling", you know). My attitude has nothing to do with their ability to understand the English language, or my use of it. It _does_ have a lot to do with their ability to reason and respond rationally and directly, instead of resorting to diversion, obfuscation, opinion-as-fact, and generally being evasive and dishonest.
If you are unable to convey your opinions on multinational forums without resorting to obfuscate readers by using unnecessary long words, perhaps you should reserve your talents solely for the Times crossword.
I find it rather condescending to assume that people would not want to extend their vocabulary whatever their mother tongue, and cannot use online dictionary resources (heck, _I_ certainly do occasionally). I really doubt occasional multi-syllabic verbiage really renders a discussion incomprehensible to people who are interested in it. For goodness' sake, people seem to be able to have discussions with Kjetil, and nobody bothers to ask me if I can follow it OK (which I can't - my failing of course).
Language is entertaining, stimulating, and fun; I'm not going to apologise for enjoying it.
Anyway, I prefer the Telegraph crossword - I think the Times is too difficult, or perhaps the puzzler masters' brains are warped in a different dimension to mine.
Not only 'nothing' to contribute, but your portentous use of words add, well, nothing to your credibility.
It don't? Rats!
I'm sure the irony of your own vocabulary in this post is intentional; however, I have a sneaky sense that you might have been rummaging through your thesaurus...
Anyway, if you think I'm bad, consider my favourite author Anthony Burgess, the man who ended a perfectly grammatical and coherent sentence with "...onions, onions, onions.", subsequently explaining to an interviewer "just because I can". Trying to comprehend his vocabulary can trigger a strabismic* rictus...
> Thanks awfully,
No need to thank me again.
Righty-ho. Bog off, then.
Oh, one final note : it might help if you read most of my posts in a fairly light-hearted tone; some people might use "emoticons", but I'm allergic to them - they make me throw up.
Gregg
* : Checked the dictionary to correct that from "strabismoid", if you must know. |
|
| List of all comments to this article (continued) |
|
- User Menu
-
- About ANN archives
- The ANN archives is powered by #AmigaZeux. It was updated daily (news last: 22-Oct-2004; comments last: 18-May-2005).
ANN.lu was created, previously owned and maintained by Christian Kemp, www.ckemp.com.
- Contribute
- Not possible at this time!
- Search ANN archives
- Advanced search
- Hosting
- ANN.lu was hosted by Dreamhost. Sign up through this link, mention "ckemp" as referrer and he will get a 10% commission on any account you purchase.
Please show your appreciation for any past, present and future work on ANN.lu by making a contribution via PayPal.
|
