Pegged. Completely.
Jesse Jackson is a Clown and Needs to Stop Already
- Thread starter Archie Moses
- Start date
- Status
Pegged. Completely.
Hopper
Banned
Kicky, how easily you lose track of what you start out to prove, eh?
1. You came into this thread specifically to ridicule me for not finding a string of 16 of 23 posts within 4 minutes. Here, after hours, YOU still haven't shown me a string which could possibly be the one referred to.
2. Prior to that, the issue was this (very short version): I got a message which alluded to "bizarre formatting" and alluded to non-existent pages and a "string" which is very difficult to identify, if it exists. I was confused. I wanted to see the actual "formatting" that was considered "bizarre," if that was even the basis for the complaint. I pointed out the source of my confusion, and asked for clarification. Twice. No response was forthcoming. You then tell the world that I was "repeatedly" told exactly what the nature of the complaint against me was. That was then, and is now, untrue. You seem to think you have somehow proved otherwise by saying I should "easily" have figured it out. I can find nothing objectionable in either the content or the formatting of the posts, even after I finally get some idea of what posts were cited.
1. You came into this thread specifically to ridicule me for not finding a string of 16 of 23 posts within 4 minutes. Here, after hours, YOU still haven't shown me a string which could possibly be the one referred to.
2. Prior to that, the issue was this (very short version): I got a message which alluded to "bizarre formatting" and alluded to non-existent pages and a "string" which is very difficult to identify, if it exists. I was confused. I wanted to see the actual "formatting" that was considered "bizarre," if that was even the basis for the complaint. I pointed out the source of my confusion, and asked for clarification. Twice. No response was forthcoming. You then tell the world that I was "repeatedly" told exactly what the nature of the complaint against me was. That was then, and is now, untrue. You seem to think you have somehow proved otherwise by saying I should "easily" have figured it out. I can find nothing objectionable in either the content or the formatting of the posts, even after I finally get some idea of what posts were cited.
So there is absolutely no doubt given aint's continued insistence and Darkwing saying he counted 15 here is a link to all 16 individual posts:
1. https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/668-The-Morman-hypothetical?p=20199&viewfull=1#post20199
2. https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/668-The-Morman-hypothetical?p=20228&viewfull=1#post20228
3. https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/668-The-Morman-hypothetical?p=20253&viewfull=1#post20253
4. https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/668-The-Morman-hypothetical?p=20254&viewfull=1#post20254
5. https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/668-The-Morman-hypothetical?p=20260&viewfull=1#post20260
6. https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/668-The-Morman-hypothetical?p=20262&viewfull=1#post20262
7. https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/668-The-Morman-hypothetical?p=20263&viewfull=1#post20263
8. https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/668-The-Morman-hypothetical?p=20265&viewfull=1#post20265
9. https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/668-The-Morman-hypothetical?p=20270&viewfull=1#post20270
10. https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/668-The-Morman-hypothetical?p=20274&viewfull=1#post20274
11. https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/668-The-Morman-hypothetical?p=20284&viewfull=1#post20284
12. https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/668-The-Morman-hypothetical?p=20286&viewfull=1#post20286
13. https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/668-The-Morman-hypothetical?p=20481&viewfull=1#post20481
14. https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/668-The-Morman-hypothetical?p=20871&viewfull=1#post20871
15. https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/668-The-Morman-hypothetical?p=20884&viewfull=1#post20884
16. https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/668-The-Morman-hypothetical?p=20949&viewfull=1#post20949
All are time-stamped prior to the issuance of aint's warning. Backing out three posts from the first one is the post by Marcus aint referenced long ago. It appears that aint simply miscounted and has never bothered to double-check.
1. https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/668-The-Morman-hypothetical?p=20199&viewfull=1#post20199
2. https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/668-The-Morman-hypothetical?p=20228&viewfull=1#post20228
3. https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/668-The-Morman-hypothetical?p=20253&viewfull=1#post20253
4. https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/668-The-Morman-hypothetical?p=20254&viewfull=1#post20254
5. https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/668-The-Morman-hypothetical?p=20260&viewfull=1#post20260
6. https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/668-The-Morman-hypothetical?p=20262&viewfull=1#post20262
7. https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/668-The-Morman-hypothetical?p=20263&viewfull=1#post20263
8. https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/668-The-Morman-hypothetical?p=20265&viewfull=1#post20265
9. https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/668-The-Morman-hypothetical?p=20270&viewfull=1#post20270
10. https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/668-The-Morman-hypothetical?p=20274&viewfull=1#post20274
11. https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/668-The-Morman-hypothetical?p=20284&viewfull=1#post20284
12. https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/668-The-Morman-hypothetical?p=20286&viewfull=1#post20286
13. https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/668-The-Morman-hypothetical?p=20481&viewfull=1#post20481
14. https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/668-The-Morman-hypothetical?p=20871&viewfull=1#post20871
15. https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/668-The-Morman-hypothetical?p=20884&viewfull=1#post20884
16. https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/668-The-Morman-hypothetical?p=20949&viewfull=1#post20949
All are time-stamped prior to the issuance of aint's warning. Backing out three posts from the first one is the post by Marcus aint referenced long ago. It appears that aint simply miscounted and has never bothered to double-check.
Hopper
Banned
For some reason, Kicky:
1. No one took that kind of care to inform me in the warning, and
2. Prior to this you have INSISTED that a different sets of posts constituted the string in question,
3. The string you end up with is the very one I pointed out, not the one you said it was, and
4. You couldn't figure all that out in 4 minutes, even though I pointed it out to you in the very post you ridiculed me for. Are you stupid?
1. No one took that kind of care to inform me in the warning, and
2. Prior to this you have INSISTED that a different sets of posts constituted the string in question,
3. The string you end up with is the very one I pointed out, not the one you said it was, and
4. You couldn't figure all that out in 4 minutes, even though I pointed it out to you in the very post you ridiculed me for. Are you stupid?
Last edited:
Aint, you'll note that link #1 is the EXACT same link that I originally gave you nearly two hours ago as "the start of the string" when you kept insisting you couldn't find it. That is exactly the area of the thread that I found in four minutes, it's been disproving your repeated insistence that I haven't found it that's taken hours. This has not been a case of me fumbling around, it's been a case of you repeatedly insisting that the string doesn't exist until I literally had to give you 16 links to prove the case. Answer honestly: Did you ever actually click on the links I provided at 11:07 and count?
I am doing my very best to have the utmost patience with you in this matter, but I have little doubt that if the shoe was on the other foot here you'd be quoting every time I said that the string didn't exist and asking if I had the stones to retract my previous statements. I don't feel the need to try and emasculate you that way because the posts speak for themselves and doing so serves no purpose.
Can we now consider this matter closed?
Hopper
Banned
As you just indicated that is NOT the start of the string--Marcus's post is. Yes I did click on it and count. So did you. It didn't fit the pattern for either of us, then, or now, did it?
You have got to be ****ing kidding me.
So you're seriously claiming that when you wrote:
and
and
you actually meant "the string of 16 out of 23 does exist and Marcus' post is the first in the string that I have personally already identified on my first attempt as detailed in my post at 12:31 PM." You're honestly claming you haven't shifted positions? Seriously? ****ing seriously?
Un-****ing-believable.
Seriously, just admit that you miscounted originally after successfully identifying the right swath of posts and have been pissing and moaning all day over the stupidest thing imaginable.
Hopper
Banned
Kicky, I told YOU, you didn't tell ME, what I presumed the "string" to be. You told me my string was wrong. You told me that I should have "known" it was the (WRONG) string in 4 minutes time. That's why we've spent hours on this petty crap.
I said I thought it was a particular string (which you now accept, after denying of hours). I said I only counted 15, but I didn't say that, because I only counted 15, I didn't know what was being referred to (now, but not when I got the warning). I merely noted that it took me "the better part of the hour" to conclude that must be the string in question--which you ridiculed on the grounds that it should have been obvious in 4 minutes--10 at most.
If it's 16, fine, that wasn't my point--I said I only counted 15, but didn't say that, because of that, I didn't think that wasn't the string that Catratcho must have meant. One of those "16" is an intentionally empty "post," so there is some ambiguity as to whether Catratcho even attempted to count that.
If it's 16 (as I have counted), fine. If it's 15, (as I have also counted) that's fine too. I NEVER said that was the difference. My point was that it was not "easy" to ascertain what Catratcho had in mind. Even though you contradicted that, you have in fact just demonstrated that it is NOT "easy." Thank you for your help with that.
I said I thought it was a particular string (which you now accept, after denying of hours). I said I only counted 15, but I didn't say that, because I only counted 15, I didn't know what was being referred to (now, but not when I got the warning). I merely noted that it took me "the better part of the hour" to conclude that must be the string in question--which you ridiculed on the grounds that it should have been obvious in 4 minutes--10 at most.
If it's 16, fine, that wasn't my point--I said I only counted 15, but didn't say that, because of that, I didn't think that wasn't the string that Catratcho must have meant. One of those "16" is an intentionally empty "post," so there is some ambiguity as to whether Catratcho even attempted to count that.
If it's 16 (as I have counted), fine. If it's 15, (as I have also counted) that's fine too. I NEVER said that was the difference. My point was that it was not "easy" to ascertain what Catratcho had in mind. Even though you contradicted that, you have in fact just demonstrated that it is NOT "easy." Thank you for your help with that.
Amazing. Absolutely amazing.
Can we now consider this matter closed?
Can we now consider this matter closed?
Hopper
Banned
You can consider it closed any time, help yourself. There are many questions I have posed which you have absolutely ducked, many erroneous statements I have pointed out which you refuse to address, etc. but it's your choice. You're the one who, after refusing to even address my observation that your characterization of a "positive" as being a "negative" was improper, jumped right back in (while still ducking the last outstanding question) because you thought (erroneously) that you had good grounds to ridicule me. You might think you see a good chance to ridicule me again, at any time, and decide you want to jump "right back in," so I won't hold you to "ending" it if you don't want to, ya know?
In the meantime, maybe you'll feel better if you go kick your cat, eh?
In the meantime, maybe you'll feel better if you go kick your cat, eh?
In that case, if you've said all you have to say, the matter is closed. Everyone who cares can read the thread and draw their own conclusions.
Aint has offically (as announced by me, in my capacity as a moderator) been the recipient of the most full due process in the history of jazzfanz.
Aint has offically (as announced by me, in my capacity as a moderator) been the recipient of the most full due process in the history of jazzfanz.
wow, you guys pulled an all-nighter on this! that might also be a historical event for jazzfanz!
Good Morning! Now I hope you can get yourselves some sleep. :-D
Good Morning! Now I hope you can get yourselves some sleep. :-D
- Status