Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On May 6, 3:20 pm, wrote:
I don't think that was deceptive at all. I told you that I heard it on the SW bands at the end of my post. I need to do no more. Shame on you for trying to make my on topic post look off topic.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - That is a real stretch. Given that standard, it would be on-topic for me to post about the death of Princess Di or Anna Nicole Smith because I had heard about them on shortwave, without indicating in any way how they were relate to radios. You did not cite a SW source in your original post. You copied an article by Reuters. You only came up later with the "heard it on SW" claim, apparently in a desperate attempt to create a figment of relevance. There was no obvious intent to discuss this in the context of any radio transmission. It looks like more evidence of your honesty and integirty. |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 6 May 2007 15:38:46 -0700, "
wrote: On May 6, 3:20 pm, wrote: I don't think that was deceptive at all. I told you that I heard it on the SW bands at the end of my post. I need to do no more. Shame on you for trying to make my on topic post look off topic.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - That is a real stretch. Given that standard, it would be on-topic for me to post about the death of Princess Di or Anna Nicole Smith because I had heard about them on shortwave, without indicating in any way how they were relate to radios. You did not cite a SW source in your original post. You copied an article by Reuters. You only came up later with the "heard it on SW" claim, apparently in a desperate attempt to create a figment of relevance. There was no obvious intent to discuss this in the context of any radio transmission. It looks like more evidence of your honesty and integirty. I don't recall the FAQ stating that I had to cite a source. It seems that you are fabricating new rules. Either way, I heard it while listening to the SW radio. I did not post it to please you. If you have issues with it might I suggest a kill filter. Good day... |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On May 6, 4:36 pm, wrote:
I don't recall the FAQ stating that I had to cite a source. It seems that you are fabricating new rules. Either way, I heard it while listening to the SW radio. I did not post it to please you. If you have issues with it might I suggest a kill filter. Good day Rules? What rules? I was only pointing out that your arguments to rationalize your off-topic positng were intellectually dishonest. You are making another illogical extrapolation. |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 6 May 2007 19:44:08 -0700, "
wrote: On May 6, 4:36 pm, wrote: I don't recall the FAQ stating that I had to cite a source. It seems that you are fabricating new rules. Either way, I heard it while listening to the SW radio. I did not post it to please you. If you have issues with it might I suggest a kill filter. Good day Rules? What rules? I was only pointing out that your arguments to rationalize your off-topic positng were intellectually dishonest. You are making another illogical extrapolation. You are the one that stated that I had to cite a source for a news story! You add rules to the faq and now you want to dance your way out of what you said? Typical.... |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On May 6, 8:23 pm, wrote:
You are the one that stated that I had to cite a source for a news story! You add rules to the faq and now you want to dance your way out of what you said? Typical.... Nice try. I did not make any assrtion that you were required by any rules to cite your source. You are fabricating another false and untruthful statement. Typical. If you re-read it, you will see that I made a simple, provably correct, declarative sentence that said that you did not cite any shortwave source. I also did acknowledge that you did cite Reuters as your source (even if inadvertently when you did a mindless cut-and paste job), so I certainly did not claim that you "had to cite a source". BTW, I am also NOT conceding your cliam that hearing it on SW is sufficient to make it on-topic. I claim that your standards for being on-topic are so low that every irrelevant topic is included, and that is not how I read the FAQ. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|