🚀 go-pugleaf

Curious George wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 22:49:52 -0500, David Maynard <nospam@private.net>
> wrote:
> 
> 
>>>>His question was answered.
>>>
>>>
>>>Mine weren't.
>>
>>Not my job.
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> Hello.  Remember me?  The guy whose points you're trying to rebut?

What I did was fill you in on Kony's argument but you wanted to argue that 
the case he made wasn't the case he made. Then you wanted to argue that the 
supposed 'original question', not by Kony, wasn't answered, as if that has 
anything to do with Kony's case, and when that didn't fly (lord knows where 
it was supposed to fly to) you tossed in "mine weren't." Not that you had 
asked any discernible questions, spending most of your effort explaining 
how no one knows what they said or meant.

I'm sure it all somehow made sense to you but on this end it's you 
fluttering hither and yon to anything with no apparent purpose other than 
to simply argue and it's not my job, even if it were possible, to 'answer' 
mythical questions invented just to make another argument.

Ironically, my 'non responsive' response there was intended to prevent 
adding more arguments to the already absurd mix but now you want to argue 
that I'm not arguing, while snipping out the only matter of real substance 
that was just discussed: what Netbeui and Netbios are.

And the ultimate irony of all, you agreed with my case about Netbeui yet 
STILL wanted to argue with me about it.

> When you're ready to take your own advice and ready to start reading &
> engaging the person you are posting a response to

You're confusing 'engage' with 'capitulate'.

> - instead of this
> mindless & prejudicial silliness  - I'll be around to discuss subjects
> in the appropriate groups.

How about we cut down on the arguments by not arguing with things we agree on?

> 
> Cheers