On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 18:38:36 +0100, Hot Badger Deluxe
 wrote:

>
>Where did I say that? It was the phrase "you may assume at all times that I
>know what you are referring to" that is arrogant.

You may.  If I don't know what you're talking about, and I want to comment,
I'll look it up.

>I built a menu system
>using a CSA user hook, which allowed the generation of soft menus, and PID
>level access, allowing single sign in, serious password control, and
>hot-key switching between sessions. Do you know I handled the lack of
>context in the calls to MADI-RAM?

Bully for you.  I have no idea what you're talking about, nor do I care, so
I'll not be passing comment on the subject.

-- 
JAF anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
     Sapere Aude

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 18:56:14 +0100, JAF wrote:


<snip>

> Bully for you.  I have no idea what you're talking about, nor do I care, so
> I'll not be passing comment on the subject.

So your original statement was wrong.

There are things that I have studied, and therefore, to some extent "know
about". Then there are things that I have "looked up", and therefore know
one or more person's views on. I'm not claiming that I am right, I'm saying
that you can't "know" what is wrong.


-- 
Grooning to the muzak

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 19:06:06 +0100, Hot Badger Deluxe
 wrote:

>
>> Bully for you.  I have no idea what you're talking about, nor do I care, so
>> I'll not be passing comment on the subject.
>
>So your original statement was wrong.

No, it wasn't.
If I wanted to know about the subject and wanted to comment, I'd find out
about it.  But I don't, so I won't.

-- 
JAF anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
     Sapere Aude

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 22:56:46 +0100, Miss Baltimore Crabs
 wrote:

>In message , Hot Badger 
>Deluxe  writes:
>>On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 18:56:14 +0100, JAF wrote:
>><snip>
>>
>>> Bully for you.  I have no idea what you're talking about, nor do I care, so
>>> I'll not be passing comment on the subject.
>>
>>So your original statement was wrong.
>
>It doesn't appear to be wrong, merely slightly incomplete in a fairly 
>obvious way (unless you're looking to pick holes for some reason).
>
>It seemed fairly clear to me that JAF essentially wrote: "If I'm 
>bothering to discuss my opinions on <some subject>, I either know 
>something about it already or am researching it as we speak."
>
>It seemed pretty clear that he wasn't saying "I know what you had for 
>breakfast, because I'm psychic."  That wouldn't be... logical.

Correct, though I'd probably say something other than 'wouldn't be logical'.
I'll leave it to you to guess what that might have been. . .
-- 
JAF
anarchatntlworldfullstopcom