Posted by isaacq on 01/02/06 03:31

In article <michelle-707C1D.17075901012006@news.west.cox.net>,
michelle@michelle.org says...

> In article <MPG.1e22314197d508409896a7@fe04.buzzardnews.com>,
> Isaacq <me@privacy.com> wrote:
>
> > > OK, so you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
> >
> > Nicely stated counterpoint.
>
> I don't have time to argue with the ignorant like that; it's like
> arguing with a flat-earther or an "intelligent design" fanatic.

So, let me see if I have this right. Anyone who doesn't feel the same
way about anything you have decided to completely embrace is an ignorant
fuckwit on a par with a scientifically ignorant religious fanatic?

That about it?

> > > Move along; those of us who do know what we're talking about have
> > > things to talk about.
> >
> > "us"? "we"? Hmm.
>
> yeah, there are more than one of us.

Oh, sigh, you seem to be missing the most obvious of points. I hate it
when that happens.

There are indeed a number of people involved in this thread that know
what they are talking about. However... one of them is NOT you.

> Considering that his message was in reply to <bingbong@spamcop.net>,
> there are at least two of us, so my use of the plural is perfectly
> correct.

Again: The poster using the email bingbong@spamcop.net has indeed
demonstrated both that they know what they are talking about and that
they are unwilling to attempt to talk about things about which they know
nothing.

You have demonstrated no such qualities and as such, are not part of a
plural involving them.

Are you always this obtuse?

> Wrong; you can. Just burn it to a CD and reimport it.

Ah, yes, I see. The fact that you have then paid for something in
mediocre quality and immediately been forced to further lower the quality
of the product before you can use it is lost on you, then?

> > YOU: "Oh, point taken. My bad."....OOPS.
>
> In response to the humorous remark that you can't listen to it on a
> kitchen appliance. Or are you so anal retentive

A person who just used a long involved metaphor about moving a house to
justify having to jump through hoops to play music so she could
circumvent the fact that the person she was speaking with had not
implicitly used the word "directly" is going to call someone else "anal
retentive"?

At least that is a term, unlike mp3 or DRM or any of the others you are
using, that you should be intimately familiar with.

> that don't understand
> that "any device" in context means "any audio device"?

I understand that the poster who called your claim that music bought from
iTMS could be played on any (audio) device "rubbish" is the same exact
poster you began this post by claiming as an ally and as part of the "us"
and "we" you were using and that I was questioning.

Do you?

> And are you so
> anal retentive that you're now going to say that they can't be played on
> a turntable?

Geepers, you've got me there. If asked, I would indeed have said that
the music purchased from iTune Music Store could not be played on a
turntable, right.

You are simply too quick for me, michelle.

> Unlike you, I'm not an arrogant, supercilious, offensive jerk who can't
> admit making an error.

I see your lips moving. . .

--
Isaacq
NP: The Vines - "Highly Evolved"

[Back to original message]