NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 20:01:15 -0600
From: email@example.com (John Fields)
Subject: Re: Austin Instruments to Close
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 01:23:49 GMT
Organization: Austin Instruments, Inc.
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <9%EW9.28259$jM5.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 11:59:16 +1100, "Phil Allison"
>"John Fields" wrote in message
>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 08:55:25 +1100, "Phil Allison"
> ** I got news for you - the dot is optional.
"I've" got news for you, the apostrophe isn't. Neither is the dot
within the less than semiliterate society. Perhaps in Sydney that
> and it's
>> happened time and time again and I don't expect it to stop anytime
>> soon. Also, 'person's' is wrong since your construction casts it as
>> plural. It should be punctualized, "persons'".
> ** Depends if you think the singular or plural is intended.
Since it's obviously not a question of whether or not _I_ have the
capability for thought, if you have a brain you must have meant
'whether' or not I thought the singular or plural was intended.
From _your_ choice of words and punctuation, one could have only
come to the conclusion that since, if an ostensibly intelligent life
form had written what _you_ wrote, the sense of the object would
have been plural. I could, however, be wrong.
>> While I realize you're still mostly delusional, perhaps if you read
>> the foregoing a few hundred times you may start to put two and two
>> together and realize that your language skills aren't, in fact,
>> quite as honed as you might have thought, the reason being that your
>> grindstone needs work.
> ** Seen the shrink lately ? - this is not good Mr Fields.
Good Mr. Fields is on holiday and has left me behind to deal with
the likes of you. Easy task. A little toilet paper, a quick wipe
and a flush and you're gone...
>> Going on to your next horribly constructed sentence it seems you're
>> stating that as a result of _something_ , you are neither autistic
>> nor a pedant, and you state that that something is because I "have
>> confused comprehension of concepts and other person's meanings."
>> According to you, then, you and I are inextricably linked and as
>> soon as I lose my confusion you will become autistic and pedantic.
> ** Really - so brain defects and mental disorders are transferable -
>like a virus ?
You didn't fall from the tree, did you?
>> Let me offer this alternative viewpoint: You are a paranoid
>> schizophrenic who experiences random moments of lucidity, but who
>> knowingly refuses to take the responsibility for his own
>> shortcomings and chooses, instead, to strike out in anger during
>> those periods.
> ** Ring the shrink - make an appointment - now.
I did. She'll see you next Thursday at 2PM.
>> BTW, 'punctualized' and 'trypo' are the required criticism eerors.
>> So is "eerors".
> ** Nothing like a consistant pedant.
No, nothing like one at all...
I'm surprised you noticed.