On 2006-08-03, Otto Bahn wrote:

Is that the thingy what has all the pictures of nekkid chyx? Or is
that IRC?

There are binary newsgroups. A lot usenets don't carry them
though. Mine only has a few (none of the explicitly naked ones,
though a lot of that stuff shows up on the supermodels group).
A friend told me.

IFYPFY.

--
When Toad found himself immured in a dank and noisome dungeon, ... he
flung himself at full length on the floor, and shed bitter tears, and
abandoned himself to dark despair. [Kenneth Grahame]

"Kevin S. Wilson" wrote

Do you really think I didn't Googled you up when you
started to trollishly crosspost?

Oh, we believe you. Really, we do. We believe you despite
the lame and typical attempt to save face in AFB while avoiding
ARK.

Either that or you took my advice and looked up some words.
And this is the thanks I get!

--oTTo--

"D. Winsor" wrote:
I would have more precisely wrote


wrote:
Oops.


"D. Winsor" wrote:
The oopses are half the fun and challenge of life.

I thought that was inflatable sheep...


Mark Edwards
--
Proof of Sanity Forged Upon Request

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 18:53:08 GMT, "D. Winsor"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 18:32:10 GMT, "D. Winsor"
wrote:


"Kevin S. Wilson" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 18:10:50 GMT, "D. Winsor"
wrote:


"Kevin S. Wilson" wrote in message
om...
On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 13:14:07 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 17:01:28 GMT, "D. Winsor"
wrote:

BTW, I've hardly ever met anybody who's "pig-ignorant".

As far as you could tell.

Do you recall a study conducted four or five years ago that found that
incompetent people are largely unaware of their incompetence, and in
fact significantly overestimate their competence?

Just wondering.

I bet you spend a whole lot of time "just wondering".

WHOOSH, again!

Ever heard of the
word "which"? Boy-oh-boy,writing the likes of "that found that", and
you
teach formal writing?

Oh, my. This is NOT going to be pretty. Brace yourself, Barbara.
Sandra Dee Winsor is fixin' to lecture us on the difference between
restrictive and non-restrictive clauses.

Nope, I'd have to look that up in some old texts

Why? Most people who know enough about syntax to advise others don't
have to look it up.

That's a gross generalisation if I ever heard one. "Most people" go by
their ear and aren't trained professionals using their craft daily.

Please pay attention. I did not say "Most people." I said, "Most
people who know enough about syntax to advise others."

Gotta watch those restrictive clauses, hon. There's a reason they're
called "restrictive."

You
both make questionable stylistic choices at times and have your share of
solicisms and typos.

You're just making this all up as you go along, aren't you?

Since I'm new to Kevie's wormhole to alt.religion.kibology, I'm like anybody
else meeting new and hostile people.

Attempting to lecture them about their writing when you clearly know
little about writing--is that really how you think "anybody else"
handles such a situation?

I would have more precisely wrote those people
"significantly overestimate their" own "competence if I was trying to
fill
the overstuffed persona you are.

Would you have also figured out how to use quotation marks correctly?

I think the point is readable and not clumsy like "that found that".

AHAHAHAHA! Best laugh so far in this thread.

Always happy to entertain.

Clowining is definitely a better move for you than the inept attempts
to critique people's writing. At least you can claim that you
intended to be funny. I doubt you'll want to claim that you intended
to be taken seriously with the writing stuff.

I hope you can dance better than you can read. You have no sense of
prose rhythm whatsoever.

I read quite well.

Sure, you read well. But about that comprehension problem ...

Maybe your problem is that you read line by line, and the line break
imposed by his newsreader threw you off.

Yet technical writers always make sense, right?

I've edited some that couldn't write their way out of a paper bag.
Kevin isn't one of them.

Kevin's sentence that you attempted to critique was both grammatically
correct and quite clear in its meaning. If you had a problem with it,
perhaps you had one of those semicompetent English teachers who drill
into kids' heads that it's not nice to use a word twice in the same
sentence. Your brother-in-spirit, a guy calling himself Gordo, made a
mistake similar to yours when he tried to tell my friend that "They
played at the Village Stage at about 12:30" should have had only one
"at." It's a different construction from the one that tripped you up,
but you and Gordo seems to suffer from the same unease with how
sentences actually work.

BW

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 19:00:52 GMT, "D. Winsor"
wrote:

Oh well, it was nice playing with the superior people here, but I got to
take my toys and go home now.

Come on back any time.

BW

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 18:53:08 GMT, "D. Winsor"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 18:32:10 GMT, "D. Winsor"
wrote:


"Kevin S. Wilson" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 18:10:50 GMT, "D. Winsor"
wrote:


"Kevin S. Wilson" wrote in message
om...
On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 13:14:07 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 17:01:28 GMT, "D. Winsor"
wrote:

BTW, I've hardly ever met anybody who's "pig-ignorant".

As far as you could tell.

Do you recall a study conducted four or five years ago that found that
incompetent people are largely unaware of their incompetence, and in
fact significantly overestimate their competence?

Just wondering.

I bet you spend a whole lot of time "just wondering".

WHOOSH, again!

Ever heard of the
word "which"? Boy-oh-boy,writing the likes of "that found that", and
you
teach formal writing?

Oh, my. This is NOT going to be pretty. Brace yourself, Barbara.
Sandra Dee Winsor is fixin' to lecture us on the difference between
restrictive and non-restrictive clauses.

Nope, I'd have to look that up in some old texts

Why? Most people who know enough about syntax to advise others don't
have to look it up.

That's a gross generalisation if I ever heard one. "Most people" go by
their ear and aren't trained professionals using their craft daily.

Well, it might be a gross generalization, if Barbara were talking
about "most people." It looks as if we REALLY need to have a chat with
you about restrictive v. non-restrictive clauses.

--
"Danked," the past participle of "dank", is used to refer to someone
who replies to his own post on an online forum posing as another person
(see "Internet sock puppet") but forgetting to change his username . . . .
This was an act of stupidity meriting a name of its own, and because the hapless
contributor's username was Danks, the term "dank" or "danked" emerged.
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danked

No cluons were harmed when "Otto Bahn"
wrote:
Some of us still just have access to the usenet.


"Mark Edwards" wrote
Is that the thingy what has all the pictures of nekkid chyx? Or is
that IRC?


No cluons were harmed when "Otto Bahn"
wrote:
There are binary newsgroups. A lot usenets don't carry them
though. Mine only has a few (none of the explicitly naked ones,
though a lot of that stuff shows up on the supermodels group).

Yeah, but you have to use one of them uuencode birth-control
thingies. Besides, binary means nekkid or not nekkid, right?

How come you can't use The Archies (archie, reggie, veronica,
jughead(?)...)over the unsenent? I've heard of cancelmoose, which
works over unsenent, though.

And I still miss TCP/IP over vinyl - my eight track doesn't play the
interweb as good as when it was on LP's - I keep getting skips in the
middle of my pictures when the track changes.


Mark Edwards
--
Proof of Sanity Forged Upon Request

On 2006-08-03, Otto Bahn wrote:

I've been posting (occaisionally) to AFB for about as long
as I can remember. Granted I don't remember much before the
car accident, but that was in 1997.

You mean the MIB told you it was a car accident.

--
When Toad found himself immured in a dank and noisome dungeon, ... he
flung himself at full length on the floor, and shed bitter tears, and
abandoned himself to dark despair. [Kenneth Grahame]

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 18:55:53 GMT, "D. Winsor"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 18:40:42 GMT, "D. Winsor"
wrote:

And that's part of the craft, eh?

As if you knew anything about the craft.

Such narrow focus and so many walls. What is this place?
Alt.religion.kevie?

Didn't CAL try the same sad ploy? Seems to me he also came over here
from AFB and started slagging on teh Kibo People, then downshifted
into "Can't we all just get along?" before slinking off into the
underbrush.

Of course, it took CAL months to get from beginning to merciful end.
Sandra Dee here seems to be trying to get it done in a day.

(I would've said "get 'er done" but it's SO annoying when Sandra
starts laughing uncontrollably.)

--
"Danked," the past participle of "dank", is used to refer to someone
who replies to his own post on an online forum posing as another person
(see "Internet sock puppet") but forgetting to change his username . . . .
This was an act of stupidity meriting a name of its own, and because the hapless
contributor's username was Danks, the term "dank" or "danked" emerged.
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danked

"Adam Funk" wrote in

Is that the thingy what has all the pictures of nekkid chyx? Or is
that IRC?

There are binary newsgroups. A lot usenets don't carry them
though. Mine only has a few (none of the explicitly naked ones,
though a lot of that stuff shows up on the supermodels group).
A friend told me.

IFYPFY.

Correct. How did you know?!

--oTTo--

On 2006-08-03, Kevin S Wilson wrote:

Well, it might be a gross generalization, if Barbara were talking
about "most people." It looks as if we REALLY need to have a chat with
you about restrictive v. non-restrictive clauses.

If the catalogue doesn't say it's a prerequisite, you can't make him
take something else first.

--
All your basement are dank!!!

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 19:00:52 GMT, "D. Winsor"
wrote:

Oh well, it was nice playing with the superior people here, but I got some
stuff to do further down the food chain

Like what? I mean, besides occupying a spot there.

--
"Danked," the past participle of "dank", is used to refer to someone
who replies to his own post on an online forum posing as another person
(see "Internet sock puppet") but forgetting to change his username . . . .
This was an act of stupidity meriting a name of its own, and because the hapless
contributor's username was Danks, the term "dank" or "danked" emerged.
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danked

[snips]

No cluons were harmed when "Otto Bahn"
wrote:
I've been posting (occaisionally) to AFB for about as long
as I can remember. Granted I don't remember much before the
car accident, but that was in 1997.

You mean you don't remember the thing with the tube of KY gel, the
lawn mower and the flock of starlings? Oh man, I've still got the
negatives... uh, for a price, that is.


Mark Edwards
--
Proof of Sanity Forged Upon Request

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 13:19:37 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson
wrote:

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 18:53:08 GMT, "D. Winsor"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..

Most people who know enough about syntax to advise others don't
have to look it up.

That's a gross generalisation if I ever heard one. "Most people" go by
their ear and aren't trained professionals using their craft daily.

Well, it might be a gross generalization, if Barbara were talking
about "most people." It looks as if we REALLY need to have a chat with
you about restrictive v. non-restrictive clauses.

Not only that, even if we can take Dee's point seriously for a moment,
it's probably true that most people go by their ear. But some people
have what's known as a tin ear, and some people never learned the
basics in the first place. Sure, not a lot of people remember all the
technical terms, but having absorbed that stuff in their early
schooling, most people manage to write clearly enough most of the
time, using the tools even if they don't know the names of the tools.
Dee in't one of them.

BW

No cluons were harmed when Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
PS: It's okay to say that you just don't know. Trust me when I say
that no one here will think any less of you.

Is it even possible to think less of him/her? Besides, I think you
mean "fewer".


Mark Edwards
--
Proof of Sanity Forged Upon Request