SpaceBanter.com - View Single Post

Raving Loonie

wrote:
Raving Loonie writes:

writes:

Raving Loonie wrote:

Double-A wrote:

ah wrote:

Double-A wrote:

Michael Baldwin, Bruce wrote:

Martin T wrote:

off topic

Figures.

Irrelevant, given that I never said that you didsay that, Tholen.
In fact, responding has never been the issue. Rather, enduring has
been the issue.

Classic evasion.

Unfortunatly his exactly like Eliza (that early computer AI inspired
software who tries, poorly, to emulate a humanconversation) -- he
can't help him self -- he will never stop responding to such
conversations.

Michael Baldwin Bruce is hardly "exactly like Eliza", Törnsten.

Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Tholen?

Classic erroneous presupposition.

Someone had once an a good idea to make a Usenet version of ELIZA and
try that on him.

Anything to keep Michael Baldwin Bruce occupiedand entertained.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

Non sequitur.

What does this have to do with OS/2, Tholen?

That would make possible some very intresting human behavior
experiment.

As if Michael Baldwin Bruce's behavior isn't already a very interesting
experiment.

It's more of your classic evasion, Tholen.

Illogical, Tholen, and rather ironic, coming from the person who has
tholed more, using your concept of the term.

My own guess would be that Tholen would "win" (computer die before he
stops responding).

What you guess is irrelevant, Törnsten.

On what basis do you speak for everybody around here, Tholen?

What you think is irrelevant, Tholen.

Touche!

Illogical, given that I didn't say anything about what I think, Bruce.

Brilliant! Just brilliant, Martin!

Illogical, given that I didn't say anything about what I think, Bruce.

You make Dickless look the fool that he is.

Who is "Dickless", Bruce? There is no such personinvolved in the
discussion. Still suffering from reading comprehension problems?

Thank you for posting to alt.astronomy, Dr. Tholen.

It was Michael Baldwin Bruce who chose to add that irrelevant
newsgroup to the distribution.

An update on your studies of asteroids near the Sunwould always be
welcome here.

I do not subscribe to alt.astronomy.

Well, don't just re-buff the Man, Tholen!

Dr. Tholen has made many discoveries in astronomy. Hewould have much
to offer an astronomy group if he wanted to.

I subscribe to sci.astro, which is an astronomy group.

But it seems that when he
gets on Usenet, he just wants to fool around.

What seems to you is irrelevant, Double-A. The fact isthat I don't
fool around at all. I do stand my ground against antagonists like
Michael Baldwin Bruce. It was Michael Baldwin Bruce who was doing
the fooling around, trolling in a thread about colored text in
DeScribe.

Maybe that's how he blows off steam.

Maybe not.

Trout 'tickling' ...

Key words: "He blows" !

Non sequitur.

If I wanted any lip off you, I'd wipe it off of Bruce's zipper!

What does that have to do with colored text in DeScribe?

Orbes volantes exstare.

What does that have to do with colored text in DeScribe, Loonie?

Those who claim that 'alien abductions' are real, make some very "non
sequitur" assertions.

Is that why you just made a non sequitur assertion, Loonie?

Note: no response.

Note: still no response.

Note: still no response.

Note: still no response.

..

What does that have to do with colored text in DeScribe, Loonie?

Note: no response.

Note: still no response.

Note: still no response.

Note: still no response.

[posted from alt.astronomy]

Irrelevant; what is relevant is what it was posted *to*.

Wrong, Tholen. It does matter what group it's posted from.

Non sequitur.

Note: no response.

Note: still no response.

Note: still no response.

It affects which group of a crossposted message the reader is directed
to when he/she/it does a seach of the Google archive. [ *maybe*]

... Different news groups can have different thread contents.

sticks tongue out as way of showing "mock" insult and signalling
victory

Still non sequitur.

Note: no response.

Note: still no response.

Note: still no response.

Ignored, by way of being irrelevent.

Illogical, given that you responded to it, Loonie.

Note: no response.

Note: still no response.

Note: still no response.

Note: still no response.

Wait a minute! ... T'is relevent, too.

What does your inability to make up your mind have to do with
colored text in DeScribe, Loonie?

Note: no response.

Note: still no response.

Note: still no response.

Note: still no response.

sticks tongue out as way of showing insult

What does your insult have to do with colored text in DeScribe, Loonie?

Note: no response.

Tautological. That which is non sequitur, is irrelevant.

What does that have to do with colored text in DeScribe, Loonie?

Note: no response.

Note: still no response.

Quid nunc?

What does your question have to do with colored text in DeScribe, Loonie?

Are you on automatic mindlessness in these responses; doing something
like tapping your fingers whilst reading a journal article; or is there
a more interesting signal buried in your responses.

I see that you didn't answer the question, Loonie. No surprise there,
really.

Note: no response.

I get the distinct
impression that I'm just shooting the breeze below the noise threshold.

Your impression is irrelevant, Loonie. I see that you still haven't
answered the question, Loonie. No surprise there, really.

Note: no response.

Frankly, the null hypothesis is looking more and more attractive!

What does the null hypothesis have to do with colored text in DeScribe, Loonie?

Note: no response.

Read any good articles lately?

What does your question have to do with colored text in DeScribe, Loonie?

What am I missing, here.

The subject of the thread, Loonie.

???????????????

What do your question marks have to do with colored text in DeScribe, Loonie?
Yes, I know that, " Note: no response. " pattern. You emphasized it
deliberately in your earlier response. Thus, I concluded that I wasn't
seeking some ghostly, meaningless message below the noise floor. If
that had been such' I would have expected your response to be
deliberately more random. I certainly don't "think" that you are
mindless about it; notwithstanding that 'mindlessness' could be the
mindfull message.

The question that I asked was a wishful, rhetorical one. I expected you
to respond with further clues; yet also to appreciate that I was asking
a rhetorical qurestion in an open manner.

Thus, you could hardly be more obivious in your clue, aside from
repeating the same pattern for a response, herein.

Give me a while to "think about it", eh. Your message could be one of
dumb, bloody mindedness. ... That would be an unfortunate thing for
me to accept; albeit that I am prepared to do so.

Nevertheless; should 'dumb, bloody mindedness', or the set of
inferences that fall in that category; be so .... ... it would
indicate:

1) You are are exceedingly, cynical ...

... and/or... ( and I don't even know if such is inclusive or
exclusive )

2) You are being very boring about it.

If either or both of these 2 inferences were so; it would sadden me.

And yes; I am assuming responses of the form ...

"Note: no response."
"What you ...*... is irrelevant"
"Classic erroneous presupposition"

... and/or in conjunction with other common reiterations.

Cordially,

RL