On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:48:15 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 12:52:29 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message



Here's a direct question. why did you delete this line?:

"The only real sin I saw was Glenn complaining what a **** Arni is,
while proving he can be a cruder and more obscene opponent in a
debate".

Because Weil IMO it shed no useful light on the discussion at hand.

Of course it did. I means that Jennifer didn't just 'attack" you out
of the blue. It was in response to a statement made by one of your
supporters.

But
since you brought it up I'll show how it proves my point about Jennifer's
comments being gratuitous, and how mentioning it shows how hysterical and
stupid you really are.

Yes, dear reader, please follow along.

Yes follow along and you will find that Weil believes that any attack on me
is justified if it is in response to something someone else says about me.

Ain't that weird?

Ain't that twisted?

Ain't that wild?

Ain't that Weil?

Furthermore Weil as you admit, I posted a proper link to the post so
people
could easily read the whole thing at their leisure. That means that I
effectively provided the entire context, even adjacent posts which google
will quickly provide once you have my link.

In contrast Weil, neither you nor Lionel posted a proper link,

I certainly *did* provide the proper link.

Not in your 11:12 EDT post.

That post wasn't addressed in that post.

You lose.

Again.

Or maybe you can show me a reference to the post that we're discussing
in that post.

You can't.

So apologize please.

It was in the quoted
material of the post and therefore was provided again by me in my
first address of this particular issue.

Weil, you provided several links, but not a link to Jennifer's post, in your
first response in this thread, which was a response to my post. Your links
all related to the arthritis issue, not Jennifer's post.

That's right. The first time I addressed the issue of the post that
you are referring to, the link WAS included.

I obviously didn't include a link before because that post wasn't
referenced AT ALL.

but
preferred to let the out-of-context quote stand in its deceptive, and
incomplete state.

Not true. I provided not only the entire link but the entire post as
well, something that you didn't do.

Eventually, after I first provided the link.

The first time I commented on that post, the link was included in my
post.

Nobody would be likely to search this out but me, your
intended victim. And that suited your deceptive purposes, quite nicely.

I don't know what you're talking about.

Clearly, you don't understand what you're talking about, either.

I don't know what you're talking about.

The link is *clearly* in my
post about the subject and the entire post is quoted, something that
you didn't do.

Eventually, after I first provided the link.

Nope. The 11:12 EST post that you refer to doesn't reference that
post. I didn't comment on it until after you provided the link and I
included the link in my reply.

You lose.

Again.

You quoted it to make it look like Jennifer just wrote
that without any prior reference to you (hence your use of the term
gratuitous).

You do a great job of missing critical points Weil when doing so suits your
purposes.

Nice dodge. I'll take this to mean that you can't quarrel with my
statement and that it is factually true.

That was Mike's line, the line that Jennifer was responding to. Did
you delete it because it would have put lie to the statement that her
mention of you was GRATUITOUS?

Mike's line clearly proves that from Jennifer's comment was gratuitous
since
she was commenting on something written by Glenn about me, and not
something
that I wrote about her.

Can't you read? She was commenting on something Mike said about you
and an exchange you had with Glenn.

Same difference.

That's right. It's the same difference that she commented IN RESPONSE
to something that was said about you that she disagreed with. She did
*not* gratuitously mention you out of thin air.

The important point is that Jennifer wasn't responding to
something that I said to or about her, but about something that someone else
said about me.

That's correct. That means it wasn't gratuitousness. There was a
context.

Want to admit that you're wrong now?

Since the only thing that is wrong Weil is your interpretation of my
statements, no I won't admit that I'm wrong.

Then you lose.

Again.

I've shown conclusively that the use of the word gratuitous is clearly
incorrect.

You see, because Mike brought your name up FIRST, she was clearly
responding to that remark, which means that it wasn't gratuitous to
talk about your behavior, since Mike had already brought it up.

You've got a weird idea of gratuitous, Weil. Was Jennifer attacking me
because of something I did or said to her in that thread, or was she piling
on someone else's attack on me?

Neither. She was disagreeing with someone's support of you.

Damn, this is just too easy.

She was NOT attacking me because of
something I did or said to her in that thread or any recent post about her.
She was publicly attacking me gratuitously.

No she wasn't. She was commenting on someone's support of you, a
support that she disagreed with.

Since Jennifer was NOT responding to something I wrote about her, her
personal attack was obviously completely gratuitous.

No it wasn't.

Sure it was.

Nope. Gratuitous would mean that she simply attacked you without any
context. Something that you routinely have done to me, BTW.

It was a direct reply to something that someone else
said about you.

Yes, she was piling-on.

Nope. She was disagreeing with one of your supporters, Mike McKelvy.

That means it wasn't gratuitous, no matter *how* you spin it.

If Jennifer was not responding to me or a recent attack by me on her, then
she was attacking me gratuitously.

You had just recently claimed that she was actually John Atkinson.
Isn't that insulting enough for you? chuckle

In fact, Jennifer was engaging in the time-honored RAO practice of
piling-on
to someone else's flames.

No, she was commenting on what Mike said.

She was piling-on.

It obviously *wasn't* gratuitous, so you need to answer the question,
or
retract and apologize.

This just shows how completely hysterical and stupid you are, Weil.
You're
obviously very confused about what it means to join in on someone else's
personal attacks on a third party. You actually seem to think its not a
gratuitous attack on your part!

I have no idae what you're talking about here.

Obviously, since an idae is not something that exists.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

And this folks is one of the things I meant when I was talking about
"dumb
guys"

Whew! You're digging your own grave here, Arnold.

No Weil, you are showing how you'll bend the definition of things to exclude
anything that doesn't fit your agenda of hate. In your hateful and twisted
view of things, any attack on me is justified if it is in response to
something someone else says about me.

And you have a twisted idea of the definition of the word
"gratuitous".

Well folks, look like Arnold lost.

No, I just trapped you into exposing your pretzel logic, Weil.

Again.

Yes Weil, I trapped you again.

Nope. You've been shown to be deceptive, confused and rather broken at
this point.

Keep up the good work!

I always do.