Another one for you.

Jeff and a person of no substance are currently in discussion about
the various Terrorism Acts, following an erroneous statement by  the
PoNS.

Take this exchange:

"Jeff"  wrote:

> "the Acts" in the comment above refer to the Acts under discussion, and 
> more specifically your statement regarding transmitters and those Acts, 
> not laws in general, where, as you say, intent is not always required.
> By the way I am still waiting for an apology regarding your accusation 
> that I was rude to you in the aioe.new.helpdesk group, which I clearly 
> demonstrated that I was not.

and the PoNS replied

>Chill out, OM.
>
>Concentrate on the discussion and not on personal remarks which
>just show you up for what you perhaps really are?

But it was the PoNS who introduced personal remarks in the first
place, and Jeff has been careful to respond with none but to
concentrate on the key issues. Here, the PoNS is attempting to cover
his own behaviour by accusing Jeff of doing so; an elementary
blame-shifting technique to cover the fact that he was wrong in his
initial statement, but won't admit it.

Easy to spot, aren't they?

I'm sure they'll be more as the day wears on.


-- 

from
Aero Spike

Spike wrote:


>But it was the PoNS who introduced personal remarks in the first
>place, and Jeff has been careful to respond with none but to
>concentrate on the key issues. Here, the PoNS is attempting to cover
>his own behaviour by accusing Jeff of doing so; an elementary
>blame-shifting technique to cover the fact that he was wrong in his
>initial statement, but won't admit it.
>
>Easy to spot, aren't they?
>
>I'm sure they'll be more as the day wears on.

Bad form, etc.

The other part of this game is that if Jeff, or anyone in his
position, does not answer the PoNS, then the PoNS will claim he was
correct, as his statement was not challenged.

So Jeff, like others here, is in the situation of either giving up and
'losing', or persisting. As Jeff has clearly demonstrated, if he
choses the latter course of action, a number of (simplistic)
techniques are brought to bear against him, in order wear him down.

By refusing to be deflected, and remaining calm and polite, Jeff is
refusing to pay this game, and shows his far-superior skills. At this
point, there is only one 'winner', and it isn't the PoNS.

-- 

from
Aero Spike

"Spike" <Aero.Spike@S&T.invalid> wrote in message 
news:l5c9641t1usa4q2od9o9mirqbl5t9hdqrm@4ax.com...
> Another one for you.
> Jeff and a person of no substance are currently in discussion about
> the various Terrorism Acts, following an erroneous statement by  the
> PoNS.

There you are, "smokescreening" again,Mrs.Nugatory!

Now, what about that "standard transceiver" and its triviality
of tuning and your qualification and experience thereto?

"Spike" <Aero.Spike@S&T.invalid> wrote in message 
news:8lc964pnt701b03su9h7f7bppcjuehud3e@4ax.com...
> So Jeff, like others here, is in the situation of either giving up and
> 'losing', or persisting. As Jeff has clearly demonstrated, if he
> choses the latter course of action, a number of (simplistic)
> techniques are brought to bear against him, in order wear him down.
> By refusing to be deflected, and remaining calm and polite, Jeff is
> refusing to pay this game, and shows his far-superior skills. At this
> point, there is only one 'winner', and it isn't the PoNS.

Edit the above so that "Jeff" becomes "12 WPM Class A" and so that
"PoNS" becomes "Mrs.Nugatory" and it describes your own
squirming now that you've been challenged over "standard transceiver"!

Indeed, with such editorial changes made, the article becomes
self-referential!

Spike wrote:

>
>Spike wrote:
>
>
>>But it was the PoNS who introduced personal remarks in the first
>>place, and Jeff has been careful to respond with none but to
>>concentrate on the key issues. Here, the PoNS is attempting to cover
>>his own behaviour by accusing Jeff of doing so; an elementary
>>blame-shifting technique to cover the fact that he was wrong in his
>>initial statement, but won't admit it.
>>
>>Easy to spot, aren't they?
>>
>>I'm sure they'll be more as the day wears on.
>
>Bad form, etc.
>
>The other part of this game is that if Jeff, or anyone in his
>position, does not answer the PoNS, then the PoNS will claim he was
>correct, as his statement was not challenged.
>
>So Jeff, like others here, is in the situation of either giving up and
>'losing', or persisting. As Jeff has clearly demonstrated, if he
>choses the latter course of action, a number of (simplistic)
>techniques are brought to bear against him, in order wear him down.
>
>By refusing to be deflected, and remaining calm and polite, Jeff is
>refusing to pay this game, and shows his far-superior skills. At this
>point, there is only one 'winner', and it isn't the PoNS.

Bad form again.

Dave, have a look at this later statement by the PoNS:

>I have never made a statement "regarding transmitters and those Acts" 
>because I was
>aware of only one Act (singular) and referred to only that one.

Note again the equivocation here; he was 'aware of only one Act', but
carefully doesn't say which of the several extant Acts he meant. One
of them could have been relevant to his point - perhaps he was trying
to buy time to look them up and be able to justify his original claim,
or to try to deflect Jeff (which didn't work, of course).

Easy, innit!


-- 

from
Aero Spike

"Spike" <Aero.Spike@S&T.invalid> wrote in message 
news:22k964h62nd1tq5u1v5spsd4hk3gee70ui@4ax.com...
> Spike wrote:
>>Spike wrote:

Reduced to talking to yourself, Mrs.Nugatory?

Why not talk to me and elaborate on these "standard transceivers",
tell me where the  standard is defined, and how many of these "trivially 
easy
to tune up" "standard transceivers" you have tuned up in your 50+
claimed years of interest?

Spike wrote:
> Another one for you.

<snip>

Proving yet again that your name should be Spite instead of Spike!

Spike wrote:

> Spike wrote:
> 
> 
>>Spike wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>But it was the PoNS who introduced personal remarks in the first
>>>place, and Jeff has been careful to respond with none but to
>>>concentrate on the key issues. Here, the PoNS is attempting to cover
>>>his own behaviour by accusing Jeff of doing so; an elementary
>>>blame-shifting technique to cover the fact that he was wrong in his
>>>initial statement, but won't admit it.
>>>
>>>Easy to spot, aren't they?
>>>
>>>I'm sure they'll be more as the day wears on.
>>
>>Bad form, etc.
>>
>>The other part of this game is that if Jeff, or anyone in his
>>position, does not answer the PoNS, then the PoNS will claim he was
>>correct, as his statement was not challenged.
>>
>>So Jeff, like others here, is in the situation of either giving up and
>>'losing', or persisting. As Jeff has clearly demonstrated, if he
>>choses the latter course of action, a number of (simplistic)
>>techniques are brought to bear against him, in order wear him down.
>>
>>By refusing to be deflected, and remaining calm and polite, Jeff is
>>refusing to pay this game, and shows his far-superior skills. At this
>>point, there is only one 'winner', and it isn't the PoNS.
> 
> 
> Bad form again.
> 
> Dave, have a look at this later statement by the PoNS:
> 
> 
>>I have never made a statement "regarding transmitters and those Acts" 
>>because I was
>>aware of only one Act (singular) and referred to only that one.
> 
> 
> Note again the equivocation here; he was 'aware of only one Act', but
> carefully doesn't say which of the several extant Acts he meant. One
> of them could have been relevant to his point - perhaps he was trying
> to buy time to look them up and be able to justify his original claim,
> or to try to deflect Jeff (which didn't work, of course).
> 
> Easy, innit!

Can too many laughs be bad for you?

Dave

Dave wrote:

>Spike wrote:
>
>> Spike wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>Spike wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>But it was the PoNS who introduced personal remarks in the first
>>>>place, and Jeff has been careful to respond with none but to
>>>>concentrate on the key issues. Here, the PoNS is attempting to cover
>>>>his own behaviour by accusing Jeff of doing so; an elementary
>>>>blame-shifting technique to cover the fact that he was wrong in his
>>>>initial statement, but won't admit it.
>>>>
>>>>Easy to spot, aren't they?
>>>>
>>>>I'm sure they'll be more as the day wears on.
>>>
>>>Bad form, etc.
>>>
>>>The other part of this game is that if Jeff, or anyone in his
>>>position, does not answer the PoNS, then the PoNS will claim he was
>>>correct, as his statement was not challenged.
>>>
>>>So Jeff, like others here, is in the situation of either giving up and
>>>'losing', or persisting. As Jeff has clearly demonstrated, if he
>>>choses the latter course of action, a number of (simplistic)
>>>techniques are brought to bear against him, in order wear him down.
>>>
>>>By refusing to be deflected, and remaining calm and polite, Jeff is
>>>refusing to pay this game, and shows his far-superior skills. At this
>>>point, there is only one 'winner', and it isn't the PoNS.
>> 
>> Bad form again.
>> 
>> Dave, have a look at this later statement by the PoNS:
>> 
>>>I have never made a statement "regarding transmitters and those Acts" 
>>>because I was
>>>aware of only one Act (singular) and referred to only that one.
>> 
>> Note again the equivocation here; he was 'aware of only one Act', but
>> carefully doesn't say which of the several extant Acts he meant. One
>> of them could have been relevant to his point - perhaps he was trying
>> to buy time to look them up and be able to justify his original claim,
>> or to try to deflect Jeff (which didn't work, of course).
>> 
>> Easy, innit!
>
>Can too many laughs be bad for you?

The penultimate laugh in this comedy of errors by the chap is that his
attempt to 'win' was to in effect say that case law (rather than the
unspecified Act) had not proved him wrong, completely and utterly
ignoring the fact that as there was yet no case law on this particular
point, Jeff's point view was equally valid. 

As Jeff had correctly pointed out several other flaws in the thinking
behind the original posting, Jeff was far more likely to be right.

The ultimate laugh was the chap's claim that as he was expressing an
opinion, he couldn't be challenged! Facts, of course, are far too
inconvenient to be addressed. You couldn't make it up.



-- 
from
Aero Spike
"I have stated my opinion. Note that I am not obliged to produce
 evidence for the opinions that I hold. I have stated my opinion
 and there is no room for further opinionating or opining"

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 08:42:26 -0400, class_a wrote:

> Spike wrote:
>> Another one for you.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Proving yet again that your name should be Spite instead of Spike!

Are you calling him a rancour?

"Dai Agnostic"  wrote in message 
news:CZGdnV0xVsE-o_PVRVnyggA@giganews.com...
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 08:42:26 -0400, class_a wrote:
>> Spike wrote:
>>> Another one for you.
>> Proving yet again that your name should be Spite instead of Spike!
> Are you calling him a rancour?

Are you saying that with a Jonathan Ross type of speech impediment?

On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 16:20:14 +0100, 12 WPM Class A wrote:

> "Dai Agnostic"  wrote in message
> news:CZGdnV0xVsE-o_PVRVnyggA@giganews.com...
>> On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 08:42:26 -0400, class_a wrote:
>>> Spike wrote:
>>>> Another one for you.
>>> Proving yet again that your name should be Spite instead of Spike!
>> Are you calling him a rancour?
> 
> Are you saying that with a Jonathan Ross type of speech impediment?

Multilayer pun.