Locked out of a thread

[MNW67]

too often used to hide things and take stuff out of context - you know fine well others won't use that back button on every post they read.

It can be used too aggressively. There are offenders on both sides. The key is to trim enough to aid clarity, whilst still leaving enough context to keep the original meaning.

 

[denso13]

And who the hell are you to judge me or any other Christian (or Muslim, or Buddhist)?
Are you the new Messiah?

Just an observation. You do show the spite and hate contained in the bible, so at least you are consistent.

Nothing personal...

 

[MNW67]

Just an observation. You do show the spire and hate contained in the bible, so at least you are consistent.

Nothing personal...

Spire? As in church spire?

 

[denso13]

Spire? As in church spire?

Oops, corrected.

 

[motorbiking]

I'm torn between my love of language and grammar and not wanting to get involved in somebody else's spat!

But I have to say, on this occasion, we all got it wrong. Me included.

So you believed Nosenout was confirming that he does not edit posts, as originally stated by @transam, challenged by me, and denied twice by him? post 21 & 31 The question:

"So are you saying you’ve never quoted someone’s post and replaced the words with “blah blah” for example?"

Did not standalone

His answer "No" was intended to deceive and was at best dishonest.

If he meant "no - to mean I am not saying that, because I confess I have done that, contrary to my earlier statement." Then we are left with the two lies and the original dishonest rebuttal to Transam, plus a confession.

Either way - it's clear. He lied.
btw I generated a syntactic tree to check - the question stands alone in the sentence. The answer is to the question.

 

[noseall]

His answer "No" was intended to deceive and was at best didishonest.

No was the correct answer. No lies from me.
The fact you went off on one says more about your ignorance than anything else.

At the very least, you should understand your own posts, dummy. lol.

 

[MNW67]

"So are you saying you’ve never quoted someone’s post and replaced the words with “blah blah” for example?"

Did not standalone

I see no reason why it can't stand alone.

Admittedly, the answer "No" is not very helpful.

I have admitted that I misunderstood it.

It would have been clearer if noseall had written "No, I am not saying that".

But I still have to agree that grammatically it is correct. Maybe he was having a bit of fun with us.

btw I generated a syntactic tree to check - the question stands alone in the sentence. The answer is to the question.

Would you explain that a bit more please. And can I see your tree.

 

[Koolpc]

I see no reason why it can't stand alone.

Admittedly, the answer "No" is not very helpful.

I have admitted that I misunderstood it.

It would have been clearer if noseall had written "No, I am not saying that".

But I still have to agree that grammatically it is correct. Maybe he was having a bit of fun with us.



Would you explain that a bit more please. And can I see your tree.

No, he is s complete muppet.

 

[johnny2007]

Pathological liar? Really? Do you mean maintains an argument and doesn’t give up?

That applies to pretty much all the regular posters on both sides of the typical threads/discussions. It’s called multi tasking.

Just an observation. You do show the spite and hate contained in the bible, so at least you are consistent.

Nothing personal...

You probably never opened a bible, how do you know what's in it?

 

[Munroast]

It can be used too aggressively. There are offenders on both sides. The key is to trim enough to aid clarity, whilst still leaving enough context to keep the original meaning.

the paragraph is that container - embolden the pertinent line but leave it within its container, which should be the paragraph

 

[noseall]

Would you explain that a bit more please.

It's typical MBK waffle. He was wrong (again), is embarrassed and is typically deflecting to hide his ignorance.
'no' was the correct and honest answer.

 

[Koolpc]

I use paw print English. Very straight forward to use and understand.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Quoting too much of any post being replied to can fill up pages and pages of threads for no reason.

Snipping and quoting relevant parts is basic forum sense.

Altering posts is against the rules.

Simple, from where I'm sat.

 

[noseall]

the paragraph is that container - embolden the pertinent line but leave it within its container, which should be the paragraph

Rubbish. It makes more sense to quote the relevant bit and cut the rest.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

It's typical MBK waffle. He was wrong (again), is embarrassed and is typically deflecting to hide his ignorance.
'no' was the correct and honest answer.

Anybody that is struggling should go back, read his question, and your answer.