[KLanD]

42n81, on 16 April 2012 - 10:41 AM, said:

KLanD, on 16 April 2012 - 07:41 AM, said:

42n81, on 13 April 2012 - 12:45 PM, said:

So, it turns out I didn't claim "Macs don't get virus" after all. Well whadayaknow?

I don't feel compelled to "take sides". I'm quite comfortable dealing with things on my own terms, without having to belong to a group of like thinkers to prove I'm right.

Re: "Apple haters think Apple computers get viruses" also implies that you believe 'Apple lovers believe the opposite.

You're still not reading the complete sentence. In the same vein, I could quote you as saying "Macs don't get virus", leave out the rest of your post and call you an Apple Fanboy.

Didn't I already mention that I am the ultimate authority when it comes to what I say and what I mean?

Don't you concern yourself with what you think I'm implying. When you do that, you taint MY words with YOUR bias and you end up seeing what you want to see.

See?

But you did claim that by claiming the opposite, if that minor logic evades you no wonder you think I'm tainting your words.

??????

Yes, your minor logic escapes me.

Maybe it's because I'm no longer a minor and haven't been for quite some time.

Could'a fooled me with the low ball teenage style attacks.

[42n81]

KLanD, on 16 April 2012 - 12:47 PM, said:

42n81, on 16 April 2012 - 10:41 AM, said:

KLanD, on 16 April 2012 - 07:41 AM, said:

42n81, on 13 April 2012 - 12:45 PM, said:

So, it turns out I didn't claim "Macs don't get virus" after all. Well whadayaknow?

I don't feel compelled to "take sides". I'm quite comfortable dealing with things on my own terms, without having to belong to a group of like thinkers to prove I'm right.

Re: "Apple haters think Apple computers get viruses" also implies that you believe 'Apple lovers believe the opposite.

You're still not reading the complete sentence. In the same vein, I could quote you as saying "Macs don't get virus", leave out the rest of your post and call you an Apple Fanboy.

Didn't I already mention that I am the ultimate authority when it comes to what I say and what I mean?

Don't you concern yourself with what you think I'm implying. When you do that, you taint MY words with YOUR bias and you end up seeing what you want to see.

See?

But you did claim that by claiming the opposite, if that minor logic evades you no wonder you think I'm tainting your words.

??????

Yes, your minor logic escapes me.

Maybe it's because I'm no longer a minor and haven't been for quite some time.

Could'a fooled me with the low ball teenage style attacks.

Attacks?

You repeatedly misquoted my comment in a petty and small-mined attempt to get something I didn't say attributed to me. Then, you pigheadedly refused to revise yourself when I pointed out your misunderstanding.

I have made no effort to fool you, as it appears you can fool yourself without anybody's help.

[KLanD]

42n81, on 16 April 2012 - 03:18 PM, said:

KLanD, on 16 April 2012 - 12:47 PM, said:

42n81, on 16 April 2012 - 10:41 AM, said:

KLanD, on 16 April 2012 - 07:41 AM, said:

42n81, on 13 April 2012 - 12:45 PM, said:

So, it turns out I didn't claim "Macs don't get virus" after all. Well whadayaknow?

I don't feel compelled to "take sides". I'm quite comfortable dealing with things on my own terms, without having to belong to a group of like thinkers to prove I'm right.

Re: "Apple haters think Apple computers get viruses" also implies that you believe 'Apple lovers believe the opposite.

You're still not reading the complete sentence. In the same vein, I could quote you as saying "Macs don't get virus", leave out the rest of your post and call you an Apple Fanboy.

Didn't I already mention that I am the ultimate authority when it comes to what I say and what I mean?

Don't you concern yourself with what you think I'm implying. When you do that, you taint MY words with YOUR bias and you end up seeing what you want to see.

See?

But you did claim that by claiming the opposite, if that minor logic evades you no wonder you think I'm tainting your words.

??????

Yes, your minor logic escapes me.

Maybe it's because I'm no longer a minor and haven't been for quite some time.

Could'a fooled me with the low ball teenage style attacks.

Attacks?

You repeatedly misquoted my comment in a petty and small-mined attempt to get something I didn't say attributed to me. Then, you pigheadedly refused to revise yourself when I pointed out your misunderstanding.

I have made no effort to fool you, as it appears you can fool yourself without anybody's help.

and yet, you still won't answer my original question...

[42n81]

KLanD, on 18 April 2012 - 12:08 PM, said:

42n81, on 16 April 2012 - 03:18 PM, said:

KLanD, on 16 April 2012 - 12:47 PM, said:

42n81, on 16 April 2012 - 10:41 AM, said:

KLanD, on 16 April 2012 - 07:41 AM, said:

But you did claim that by claiming the opposite, if that minor logic evades you no wonder you think I'm tainting your words.

??????

Yes, your minor logic escapes me.

Maybe it's because I'm no longer a minor and haven't been for quite some time.

Could'a fooled me with the low ball teenage style attacks.

Attacks?

You repeatedly misquoted my comment in a petty and small-mined attempt to get something I didn't say attributed to me. Then, you pigheadedly refused to revise yourself when I pointed out your misunderstanding.

I have made no effort to fool you, as it appears you can fool yourself without anybody's help.

and yet, you still won't answer my original question...

You misquoted me several times.

I don't recall you asking me any question. Could you post a link to the question you asked me?

[KLanD]

42n81, on 19 April 2012 - 06:20 AM, said:

You misquoted me several times.

I don't recall you asking me any question. Could you post a link to the question you asked me?

Not sure how I misquoted you.. by copy/pasting your exact quote.. but anyway.

Page 3 post #42.

[42n81]

KLanD, on 20 April 2012 - 09:19 AM, said:

42n81, on 19 April 2012 - 06:20 AM, said:

You misquoted me several times.

I don't recall you asking me any question. Could you post a link to the question you asked me?

Not sure how I misquoted you.. by copy/pasting your exact quote.. but anyway.

Page 3 post #42.

What question?

That comment says:

KLanD, on 10 April 2012 - 10:18 AM, said:

42n81, on 06 April 2012 - 07:12 AM, said:

KLanD, on 06 April 2012 - 06:21 AM, said:

Also, how is it anti-Apple people perpetrating the "Virus Myth" when Apple uses it in it's own advertising?

...Apple haters don't like Apple users and that Apple haters think Apple computers get viruses.

... Apple computers don't get viruses ...

There it is - a direct quote, cut and paste. You said it. Right?

[KLanD]

42n81, on 20 April 2012 - 02:02 PM, said:

There it is - a direct quote, cut and paste. You said it. Right?

That isn't misquoting, that's called quoting out of context. I did neither, I quoted you and asked for context.

Big difference.

[42n81]

KLanD, on 21 April 2012 - 05:02 AM, said:

42n81, on 20 April 2012 - 02:02 PM, said:

There it is - a direct quote, cut and paste. You said it. Right?

That isn't misquoting, that's called quoting out of context. I did neither, I quoted you and asked for context.

Big difference.

Quoting out of context is still misquoting.

The context was in my original comment, which I repeated several times for your benefit.

[KLanD]

42n81, on 21 April 2012 - 07:20 PM, said:

KLanD, on 21 April 2012 - 05:02 AM, said:

42n81, on 20 April 2012 - 02:02 PM, said:

There it is - a direct quote, cut and paste. You said it. Right?

That isn't misquoting, that's called quoting out of context. I did neither, I quoted you and asked for context.

Big difference.

Quoting out of context is still misquoting.

The context was in my original comment, which I repeated several times for your benefit.

I think you need to look both of those up.

Repeat the comment all you want. it still doesn't clarify it. It's amazing how you can't give a simple answer, or maybe you just plain refuse to.

"The context was in my original comment," Ok, so then my assumption was correct, unless you'd care to say otherwise (and actually answer the question given).

Until you're ready to stop running around the bush...

This post has been edited by KLanD: 24 April 2012 - 12:31 PM

[nonseq]

KLanD, on 24 April 2012 - 12:28 PM, said:

42n81, on 21 April 2012 - 07:20 PM, said:

KLanD, on 21 April 2012 - 05:02 AM, said:

42n81, on 20 April 2012 - 02:02 PM, said:

There it is - a direct quote, cut and paste. You said it. Right?

That isn't misquoting, that's called quoting out of context. I did neither, I quoted you and asked for context.

Big difference.

Quoting out of context is still misquoting.

The context was in my original comment, which I repeated several times for your benefit.

I think you need to look both of those up.

Repeat the comment all you want. it still doesn't clarify it. It's amazing how you can't give a simple answer, or maybe you just plain refuse to.

"The context was in my original comment," Ok, so then my assumption was correct, unless you'd care to say otherwise (and actually answer the question given).

Until you're ready to stop running around the bush...

As I've followed this thread 42n81 has not "run around the bush" at all. If there has been any evasion, it has been on KlanD's part. 42n81's arguments have been direct, lucid, logical, and in well written English. His word choice has been accurate and correct and he has not tried to hide behind narrow and often incorrect definitions of words and concepts. We could all do well to follow his approach to logical debate.

Quote

mis·quote (ms-kwt)
tr.v. mis·quot·ed, mis·quot·ing, mis·quotes
To quote incorrectly.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

misquote [ˌmɪsˈkwəʊt]
vb
to quote (a text, speech, etc.) inaccurately

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

out of context
[of an utterance or the report of an action] removed from the surrounding context of the event, thereby misrepresenting the intent of the utterance or report.

McGraw-Hill Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs. © 2002 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

To cite a person out of context is to quote inaccurately.

This post has been edited by nonseq: 24 April 2012 - 12:50 PM

[42n81]

KLanD, on 18 April 2012 - 12:08 PM, said:

42n81, on 16 April 2012 - 03:18 PM, said:

KLanD, on 16 April 2012 - 12:47 PM, said:

42n81, on 16 April 2012 - 10:41 AM, said:

KLanD, on 16 April 2012 - 07:41 AM, said:

But you did claim that by claiming the opposite, if that minor logic evades you no wonder you think I'm tainting your words.

??????

Yes, your minor logic escapes me.

Maybe it's because I'm no longer a minor and haven't been for quite some time.

Could'a fooled me with the low ball teenage style attacks.

Attacks?

You repeatedly misquoted my comment in a petty and small-mined attempt to get something I didn't say attributed to me. Then, you pigheadedly refused to revise yourself when I pointed out your misunderstanding.

I have made no effort to fool you, as it appears you can fool yourself without anybody's help.

and yet, you still won't answer my original question...

Once more, what part of :

"I know that the commenters on these forums repeating Apple's claims do so to discredit Apple and its user base but what people remember is that Apple haters don't like Apple users and that Apple haters think Apple computers get viruses."

do you have difficulty with?

The answer to you question is right there.

[KLanD]

42n81, on 24 April 2012 - 01:27 PM, said:

Once more, what part of :

"I know that the commenters on these forums repeating Apple's claims do so to discredit Apple and its user base but what people remember is that Apple haters don't like Apple users and that Apple haters think Apple computers get viruses."

do you have difficulty with?

The answer to you question is right there.

"Apple haters think Apple computers get viruses"

Once more, do you agree with this or are you implying they don't.

[KLanD]

nonseq, on 24 April 2012 - 12:37 PM, said:

As I've followed this thread 42n81 has not "run around the bush" at all. If there has been any evasion, it has been on KlanD's part. 42n81's arguments have been direct, lucid, logical, and in well written English. His word choice has been accurate and correct and he has not tried to hide behind narrow and often incorrect definitions of words and concepts. We could all do well to follow his approach to logical debate.

Quote

mis·quote (ms-kwt)
tr.v. mis·quot·ed, mis·quot·ing, mis·quotes
To quote incorrectly.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

misquote [ˌmɪsˈkwəʊt]
vb
to quote (a text, speech, etc.) inaccurately

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

out of context
[of an utterance or the report of an action] removed from the surrounding context of the event, thereby misrepresenting the intent of the utterance or report.

McGraw-Hill Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs. © 2002 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

To cite a person out of context is to quote inaccurately.

Why am I not surprised you side with 42n81, lol..

They are two very different things,

Misquote: To Quote (a person or a piece of written or spoken text) inaccurately.

I didn't quote anything inaccurately. I took a direct copy paste of the exact words he wrote.

Out of Context: To interpret something in a manner in which it was not intended to be understood, often deliberately.

Didn't do that either, I actually asked him for further clarification on his last statement, which has yet to be provided. To quote out of context you don't necessarily have to misquote someone.

How is avoiding my question for ump-teen posts not 'running around the bush'? Re-posting a comment is not clarification.

Anyway, I'm done with this, his views are plainly obvious.

[nonseq]

KLanD, on 25 April 2012 - 02:12 PM, said:

nonseq, on 24 April 2012 - 12:37 PM, said:

As I've followed this thread 42n81 has not "run around the bush" at all. If there has been any evasion, it has been on KlanD's part. 42n81's arguments have been direct, lucid, logical, and in well written English. His word choice has been accurate and correct and he has not tried to hide behind narrow and often incorrect definitions of words and concepts. We could all do well to follow his approach to logical debate.

Quote

mis·quote (ms-kwt)
tr.v. mis·quot·ed, mis·quot·ing, mis·quotes
To quote incorrectly.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

misquote [ˌmɪsˈkwəʊt]
vb
to quote (a text, speech, etc.) inaccurately

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

out of context
[of an utterance or the report of an action] removed from the surrounding context of the event, thereby misrepresenting the intent of the utterance or report.

McGraw-Hill Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs. © 2002 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

To cite a person out of context is to quote inaccurately.

Why am I not surprised you side with 42n81, lol..

They are two very different things,

Misquote: To Quote (a person or a piece of written or spoken text) inaccurately.

I didn't quote anything inaccurately. I took a direct copy paste of the exact words he wrote.

Out of Context: To interpret something in a manner in which it was not intended to be understood, often deliberately.

Didn't do that either, I actually asked him for further clarification on his last statement, which has yet to be provided. To quote out of context you don't necessarily have to misquote someone.

How is avoiding my question for ump-teen posts not 'running around the bush'? Re-posting a comment is not clarification.

Anyway, I'm done with this, his views are plainly obvious.

Good that you're done with this because you just don't get it. At all. I'm done with your posts because your mind is made up and you don't use the language or logic correctly. You did not correctly quote him at all. By taking him out of context and posting it, you misquoted him. Perhaps a couple of basic English classes and maybe even a logic class at the local community college would help you with these very basic concepts.

[KLanD]

nonseq, on 25 April 2012 - 02:15 PM, said:

KLanD, on 25 April 2012 - 02:12 PM, said:

nonseq, on 24 April 2012 - 12:37 PM, said:

As I've followed this thread 42n81 has not "run around the bush" at all. If there has been any evasion, it has been on KlanD's part. 42n81's arguments have been direct, lucid, logical, and in well written English. His word choice has been accurate and correct and he has not tried to hide behind narrow and often incorrect definitions of words and concepts. We could all do well to follow his approach to logical debate.

Quote

mis·quote (ms-kwt)
tr.v. mis·quot·ed, mis·quot·ing, mis·quotes
To quote incorrectly.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

misquote [ˌmɪsˈkwəʊt]
vb
to quote (a text, speech, etc.) inaccurately

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

out of context
[of an utterance or the report of an action] removed from the surrounding context of the event, thereby misrepresenting the intent of the utterance or report.

McGraw-Hill Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs. © 2002 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

To cite a person out of context is to quote inaccurately.

Why am I not surprised you side with 42n81, lol..

They are two very different things,

Misquote: To Quote (a person or a piece of written or spoken text) inaccurately.

I didn't quote anything inaccurately. I took a direct copy paste of the exact words he wrote.

Out of Context: To interpret something in a manner in which it was not intended to be understood, often deliberately.

Didn't do that either, I actually asked him for further clarification on his last statement, which has yet to be provided. To quote out of context you don't necessarily have to misquote someone.

How is avoiding my question for ump-teen posts not 'running around the bush'? Re-posting a comment is not clarification.

Anyway, I'm done with this, his views are plainly obvious.

Good that you're done with this because you just don't get it. At all. I'm done with your posts because your mind is made up and you don't use the language or logic correctly. You did not correctly quote him at all. By taking him out of context and posting it, you misquoted him. Perhaps a couple of basic English classes and maybe even a logic class at the local community college would help you with these very basic concepts.

Wow.. you guys are too much. Why do I get into these arguments with people who trade basic logic for product loyalty.

Please cite one example of me misquoting him or using his quote out of context.

[linuxrants7xpg]

KLanD, on 25 April 2012 - 02:29 PM, said:

Wow.. you guys are too much. Why do I get into these arguments with people who trade basic logic for product loyalty.

Question.

KLanD, on 25 April 2012 - 02:29 PM, said:

Please cite one example of me misquoting him or using his quote out of context.

Answer.

This is why even bothering to answer individuals such as nonseq, 42n81, or crosswordbob is not worth the time. According to them, they always provide attribution for their comments, never attack the individual, and are always just correcting the mistakes of others. To 48n81 or nonseq this whole thread is proof that they're right, and you're wrong. You'll never get a satisfactory answer from them, so don't expect one. Of course, I'd love to be proven wrong on this, but I expect I'll get nothing but a couple down votes.

[KLanD]

linuxrants7xpg, on 25 April 2012 - 02:38 PM, said:

KLanD, on 25 April 2012 - 02:29 PM, said:

Wow.. you guys are too much. Why do I get into these arguments with people who trade basic logic for product loyalty.

Question.

KLanD, on 25 April 2012 - 02:29 PM, said:

Please cite one example of me misquoting him or using his quote out of context.

Answer.

This is why even bothering to answer individuals such as nonseq, 42n81, or crosswordbob is not worth the time. According to them, they always provide attribution for their comments, never attack the individual, and are always just correcting the mistakes of others. To 48n81 or nonseq this whole thread is proof that they're right, and you're wrong. You'll never get a satisfactory answer from them, so don't expect one. Of course, I'd love to be proven wrong on this, but I expect I'll get nothing but a couple down votes.

and you know what the funny part is? In the context of this conversation, I wasn't even looking for right or wrong, I was just asking for an opinion.

[42n81]

KLanD, on 25 April 2012 - 02:01 PM, said:

42n81, on 24 April 2012 - 01:27 PM, said:

Once more, what part of :

"I know that the commenters on these forums repeating Apple's claims do so to discredit Apple and its user base but what people remember is that Apple haters don't like Apple users and that Apple haters think Apple computers get viruses."

do you have difficulty with?

The answer to you question is right there.

"Apple haters think Apple computers get viruses"

Once more, do you agree with this or are you implying they don't.

I totally agree with that statement (especially since I wrote it originally).

Even out of context I agree with it.

[42n81]

KLanD, on 25 April 2012 - 03:16 PM, said:

linuxrants7xpg, on 25 April 2012 - 02:38 PM, said:

KLanD, on 25 April 2012 - 02:29 PM, said:

Wow.. you guys are too much. Why do I get into these arguments with people who trade basic logic for product loyalty.

Question.

KLanD, on 25 April 2012 - 02:29 PM, said:

Please cite one example of me misquoting him or using his quote out of context.

Answer.

This is why even bothering to answer individuals such as nonseq, 42n81, or crosswordbob is not worth the time. According to them, they always provide attribution for their comments, never attack the individual, and are always just correcting the mistakes of others. To 48n81 or nonseq this whole thread is proof that they're right, and you're wrong. You'll never get a satisfactory answer from them, so don't expect one. Of course, I'd love to be proven wrong on this, but I expect I'll get nothing but a couple down votes.

and you know what the funny part is? In the context of this conversation, I wasn't even looking for right or wrong, I was just asking for an opinion.

What's even funnier is that you came to a conclusion about what my opinion was. I told you that the conclusion you had reached was incorrect. Given the deduction skills you claim to have, I figured I didn't need to explain any further.

[42n81]

linuxrants7xpg, on 25 April 2012 - 02:38 PM, said:

KLanD, on 25 April 2012 - 02:29 PM, said:

Wow.. you guys are too much. Why do I get into these arguments with people who trade basic logic for product loyalty.

Question.

KLanD, on 25 April 2012 - 02:29 PM, said:

Please cite one example of me misquoting him or using his quote out of context.

Answer.

This is why even bothering to answer individuals such as nonseq, 42n81, or crosswordbob is not worth the time. According to them, they always provide attribution for their comments, never attack the individual, and are always just correcting the mistakes of others. To 48n81 or nonseq this whole thread is proof that they're right, and you're wrong. You'll never get a satisfactory answer from them, so don't expect one. Of course, I'd love to be proven wrong on this, but I expect I'll get nothing but a couple down votes.

Don't worry too much about down votes. I save those for retaliation purposes towards those who have pursued me relentlessly with theirs. As much as I dislike having to do so, it would appear SOME people have started to get the message.

This post has been edited by 42n81: 25 April 2012 - 04:01 PM