 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneousDiscussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK ScubaDirectoryScuba Clubs |
Scuba Forum / General / July 2007jof without shame...
mind blowing. jof summarized in one sentence. "The problem for me in answering is that I'm theorizing with more intuited logic than facts." -JOF we noticed. > mind blowing. > jof summarized in one sentence. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > we noticed. Without Popeye 'splainin' it to you? Attaboy. JF >> mind blowing. >> jof summarized in one sentence. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Without Popeye 'splainin' it to you? Attaboy. You mean like, the way Dennis has to "splain" things to you? Hell, Yesman Mike is still trying to figure out what I want to bet him on. Think he'd bargain his credibility down to $250, or is that still too high?  Signature"I wasn't going to get into any of this until later, but you asked a reasonable question. The problem for me in answering is that I'm theorizing with more intuited logic than facts." -JOF Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com On Jul 28, 4:32 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > >> mind blowing. > >> jof summarized in one sentence. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > You mean like, the way Dennis has to "splain" things to you? He's embarrassed by the hashup you make of things, I guess. > Hell, Yesman Mike is still trying to figure out what I want to bet him on. As are some of the rest of us. You let yer testosterone carry you away at times. > Think he'd bargain his credibility down to $250, or is that still too > high? I took it that he valued his credibility too much to make it a gambling chip on your tilted table. JF > On Jul 28, 4:32 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > He's embarrassed by the hashup you make of things, I guess. Of course, since -he- understands it, -I- understand it, and pretty much everybody -but- you understands it, I can see why you think that makes it "my" hashup. You've exhibited similar conclusions many times. >> Hell, Yesman Mike is still trying to figure out what I want to bet him >> on. > > As are some of the rest of us. You let yer testosterone carry you away > at times. I don't think you and Mike equates to "some of the rest of us", but, who knows. Sheryl might pivot in and hoist. >> Think he'd bargain his credibility down to $250, or is that still too >> high? > > I took it that he valued his credibility too much to make it a > gambling chip on your tilted table. Or couldn't back his innuendo. After calling my credibility into question several times, and questioning my presence several times, he wouldn't back his mouth with a bet.. Most people would hardly see that as "valuing his credibility". But seeing what -your- credibility is around here, I can see how you reached your futile conclusion. As far as a tilted table, I said I was in Ottawa and Orleans, he said, several times, that he doubted it, and I challenged him with a bet. He declined, dodged, and scurried. It's awfully simple to prove, and I don't see where your "tilted table" comes from, but then your comprehension issues deepen and widen daily. Would -you- like to take his bet? Say, $15? Is his credibility worth that? Because he had a chance to back yours, and he shanked you for all to see. What will you do? > JF Signature"I wasn't going to get into any of this until later, but you asked a reasonable question. The problem for me in answering is that I'm theorizing with more intuited logic than facts." -JOF Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com On Jul 28, 10:30 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > I don't think you and Mike equates to "some of the rest of us", but, who > knows. Think about what you just wrote there, dude, and if you're not embarrassed by it then you'll never be embarrassed, but then that's a probability, isn't it? > >> Think he'd bargain his credibility down to $250, or is that still too > >> high? Unlike you, I seriously doubt he'll try to bargain away his credibility on a bet. > > I took it that he valued his credibility too much to make it a > > gambling chip on your tilted table. > > Or couldn't back his innuendo. I think that was your innuendo and his response. His sounded pretty straightforward to me, unlike your smoke and mirrors. > After calling my credibility into question several times, and questioning > my presence several times, he wouldn't back his mouth with a bet.. Your credibility has long been in question here. Mike didn't bring anything new to the group and you're the only one who seems compelled to bet on their own credibility. Some of the rest of us are pretty comfortable with ours without the gambling nonsense. > Most people would hardly see that as "valuing his credibility". You're the only one trying to put a price tag on it. Think about it. > But seeing what -your- credibility is around here, I can see how you > reached your futile conclusion. In yer dreams, dude. That being said, I'm sure one of the metoos will come to your defense. You're lucky to have such loyal, if blindered, friends. Most of us have to prove ourselves at least once, something beyond springing for drinks and kissing serious a.s for a night. > As far as a tilted table, I said I was in Ottawa and Orleans, he said, > several times, that he doubted it, and I challenged him with a bet. Bullshit. You danced around what he said like some Nureyev wannabe. > He declined, dodged, and scurried. He declined and laughed at your silly pretentions. > It's awfully simple to prove, and I don't see where your "tilted table" > comes from, but then your comprehension issues deepen and widen daily. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Is his credibility worth that? His credibility is already on the table. You can't deflect the truth with your silly betting game. You rolled the dice and lost. He outgunned you in your own terms. Quit while you're only a little behind. > Because he had a chance to back yours, and he shanked you for all to see. We're still waiting for the cites to back up that particular nonsense. > What will you do? Continue to laugh at your squirming? JF > On Jul 28, 4:32 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > He's embarrassed by the hashup you make of things, I guess. I'm not embarrassed, nor do I think he (Popeye) makes a "hashup" of things. Dennis On Jul 29, 11:17 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote: > > On Jul 28, 4:32 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > I'm not embarrassed, nor do I think he (Popeye) makes a "hashup" of things. "That being said, I'm sure one of the metoos will come to your defense. You're lucky to have such loyal, if blindered, friends. Most of us have to prove ourselves at least once, something beyond springing for drinks and kissing serious a.s for a night. " Who says I never provide cites? 8) JF > On Jul 29, 11:17 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Who says I never provide cites? 8) It would be nice, on the annual outing, if you'd provide an accurate one. Dennis came to his own defense, correcting your incorrect "guess". Your putting of words in his mouth, actually, as you accuse others of, per your usual M.O.. He was just leading you by the hand, as we all do. Signature"I wasn't going to get into any of this until later, but you asked a reasonable question. The problem for me in answering is that I'm theorizing with more intuited logic than facts." -JOF Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com > > On Jul 29, 11:17 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Dennis came to his own defense, correcting your incorrect "guess". Another example of his "intuited logic" instead of facts? > Your putting of words in his mouth, actually, as you accuse others of, per > your usual M.O.. > > He was just leading you by the hand, as we all do. Dennis On Jul 29, 12:44 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote: > > > On Jul 29, 11:17 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > > He was just leading you by the hand, as we all do. I'm not sure you and I have the same idea of what constitutes a fact. Something uttered at some point by the Master Metoo doesn't necessarily constitute a fact. If it's merely quoting his words that would be factual, but his opinion and his fabrications are often off the mark, generally easily recognized by the preceding "that's a lie." and and the postscript "You're a liar." What comes in between is often a Popeyeism of the first water, customarily adorned with unpronounceable goobledeegook and scatological language, but seldom to be confused by anyone but the Metoos with fact. > On Jul 29, 12:44 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > I'm not sure you and I have the same idea of what constitutes a fact. I use the dictionary's definition. You? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fact > Something uttered at some point by the Master Metoo doesn't > necessarily constitute a fact. If it's merely quoting his words that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > unpronounceable goobledeegook and scatological language, but seldom to > be confused by anyone but the Metoos with fact. John, the fact in question was my ocrrections of your guesses with what I really think. On Jul 29, 4:21 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote: > > On Jul 29, 12:44 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > John, the fact in question was my ocrrections of your guesses with what I > really think.- Do you ever make yerself dizzy with yer answers? JF > On Jul 29, 4:21 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > wrote: <snip> > > John, the fact in question was my corrections of your guesses with what I > > really think.- > > Do you ever make yerself dizzy with yer answers? No, not at all. Did my answer really confuse you? Here, lets take it slow John, (that's you) the fact in question (here, take some time out. breathe,,,, was my corrections (still with us? Keep breathing!) of your guesses (almost there! you can make it!) with what I really think. (Cool! You're here. Still breathing? did you follow all that?) Dennis >> On Jul 29, 4:21 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Dennis Priceless. Signature"I wasn't going to get into any of this until later, but you asked a reasonable question. The problem for me in answering is that I'm theorizing with more intuited logic than facts." -JOF Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com On Jul 29, 11:02 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > >> On Jul 29, 4:21 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Priceless. Dennis obviously missed his calling. He's a natural clown. JF On Jul 29, 11:07 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > > On Jul 29, 11:17 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > It would be nice, on the annual outing, if you'd provide an accurate one. How much more accurate than a cut and paste of your very post can it get? > Dennis came to his own defense, correcting your incorrect "guess". > > Your putting of words in his mouth, actually, as you accuse others of, per > your usual M.O.. Blarney. Are you Irish perchance? > He was just leading you by the hand, as we all do. The blind leading the blind? 8) JF > On Jul 29, 11:07 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" >> >> > >news:1185654536.049556.108640@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > How much more accurate than a cut and paste of your very post can it > get? That's kind of a conundrum. For you, that is. See, cut n' pastes of -my- posts are generally considered accurate. But cut n' pastes of -your- written word are frequently challenged for accuracy. The conundrum is, -maybe- after me, -you're- the one that challenges the accuracy of your own written word most frequently. And what you cut and pasted was your post. Not mine. Remember my discourse yesterday about your memory? >> Dennis came to his own defense, correcting your incorrect "guess". >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Blarney. Are you Irish perchance? Half, as you read recently. >> He was just leading you by the hand, as we all do. > > The blind leading the blind? 8) He's corrected you a number of times now on the same point. But bedrock has never stopped you before. "I wasn't going to get into any of this until later, but you asked a reasonable question. The problem for me in answering is that I'm theorizing with more intuited logic than facts." -JOF Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com > On Jul 29, 11:17 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > friends. Most of us have to prove ourselves at least once, something > beyond springing for drinks and kissing serious a.s for a night. " Was it a "defense" or more a correction of the inaccuracies in your statement? Dennis >> On Jul 29, 11:17 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Dennis <cough> Signature"I wasn't going to get into any of this until later, but you asked a reasonable question. The problem for me in answering is that I'm theorizing with more intuited logic than facts." -JOF Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com On Jul 29, 12:18 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote: > > On Jul 29, 11:17 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Was it a "defense" or more a correction of the inaccuracies in your > statement? Sounded like a defense to me - "nor do I think he (Popeye) makes a "hashup" of things." JF > On Jul 29, 12:18 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > "hashup" of > things." I was correcting your statement (guess) - pointing out that you'd gotten two things wrong about what I think. Your statement had two concepts. a) I was embarrassed b) I thought he made a hashup of things. Therefore, I had to correct you on two counts. Two incorrect concepts, two corections. If I just said "I'm not embarrased, then you could claim that, since I didn't challenge the "hashup" comment that I did indeed agree with that. Dennis |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.