Important Deletions

[SherLok Merfy]

Matthew Johnson wrote of my prompt to show his assertion that I don't
quote enough:
(...)

That is a loaded question, and a particularly poor one. The issue is
not whether or not I can remember it. The issue is the dishonesty
implicit in your act, passing over the argument in silence, without
even an _attempt_ to address it.

I do not have to address all of your arguments. If arguments devolve
into being directed more at the messenger than the message, then it is
_important_ that I either don't answer them or answer them in e-mail or
in a group like alt.flame or alt.usage.english. In such and many other
cases, I can let the reader figure out who or what is more evasive,
irrelevant, boring or wrong. It's not always the one who wrote the last
set of interpretive interruptions.

Complete and verbatim quotation is illegal in broadcast paper
correspondence, so why should it be normal on USENET? Lastly, I divided
this thread. That is why (...) appears at the beginning of these
divisions.
_______
http://www.mynumo.com/SherLok

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by SherLok Merfy
Matthew Johnson wrote of my prompt to show his assertion that I don't
(...)

That is a loaded question, and a particularly poor one. The issue is
not whether or not I can remember it. The issue is the dishonesty
implicit in your act, passing over the argument in silence, without
even an _attempt_ to address it.

I do not have to address all of your arguments.

But you didn't address ANY of them. So this is just another tawdry
evasion.

Post by SherLok Merfy
If arguments devolve into being directed more at the messenger than
the message, then it is _important_ that I either don't answer them
or answer them in e-mail or in a group like alt.flame or
alt.usage.english.

But this was NOT the case. So you are being dishonest and evasive.

Post by SherLok Merfy
In such and many other cases, I can let the reader figure out who or
what is more evasive, irrelevant, boring or wrong.

Don't be too surprised when they find that it is you who is more
evasive and wrong. And being scandalously wrong may be the only thing
that keeps you from being boring.

Post by SherLok Merfy
It's not always the one who wrote the last set of interpretive
interruptions.
Complete and verbatim quotation is illegal in broadcast paper
correspondence, so why should it be normal on USENET?

Nobody asked you for "complete and verbatim quotation". And no, it is
NOT illegal in broadcast paper correspondence. On the contrary: if a
newspaper misquotes, they can be sued, although this does not happen
often enough, because the standards of evidence are so demanding,
especially in the US. It is _plagiarism_ that is illegal, not accurate
quotation.

Where _do_ you get all this misinformation, Merfy?

Post by SherLok Merfy
Lastly, I divided this thread. That is why (...) appears at the
beginning of these divisions.

And this too, is abuse of language, and with the appearance of yet
more dishonesty. For "..." has a standard meaning, and that standard
meaning is NOT the meaning you are putting on it. Using expressions
with standard meanings to mean something quite different IS
dishonesty.

There is nothing wrong with dividing thread per se. It should happen
more often. But the way YOU chose to do it is clearly wrong.