Re: Weekly posting summary

"whisky-dave" <whisky-dave@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:fu7srv$tuq$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "H Duffy" <hester_duffy@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
> news:66moooF2l52djU1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> If you had said from the start that the caption was only a joke and
that 
>> no masks were involved, I wouldn't have misunderstood, but you were 
>> unclear, _again_.
> It wasn't me that was unclear it was the description the picture had,
> all I did was give a very clear description of the text appearing with
the 
> picture.

But you didn't make it clear that the description didn't match the
picture. 
In fact, given that you're so very sure the picture was of me, you gave
the 
impression of believing that the title was accurate.
Do you understand why someone who didn't know what was inside your head 
would misunderstand?

>> So why mention the mask in the first place? Did you think it would help

>> to identify the picture?
> Well that was the original text which was under the picture.
> I'm not sure how else anyone could find a picture without using the 
> original
> description.

Given that you've said the photo was taken down, the description wouldn't 
actually help anyone to find it anyway, would it?

But if you wanted to include it, you could have said "The description said

"$Whatever", but actually, the person in it wasn't wearing a mask".
That way, there would have been no confusion. Do you understand that?

>> But you claimed that I _did_ ask for it to be taken down. You were
wrong 
>> on that point.
> I remember you also saying you'd ask for pictures of you to be taken
down,

I said I would do so if someone was selling them.

>> Then why do you keep bringing it up? This isn't the first time you've 
>> mentioned it.
> because just because you can't see it and the link no longer works
> that doesn't mean the picture never existed as you believe
> because you've not seen it.

That's right.
But why do you keep bringing it up obsessively?

>> Why would I be taking pictures of myself with someone else's camera?
> Well if you haven't one of your own what other choices have you ?

Erm... not taking pictures at all? I don't have a camera (or didn't,
rather; 
I recently acquired one for free) because I have no particular interest in

taking photos, or in having photos taken for me.

>>> According to what I saw was the actual content of the picture.
>>
>> Could you try that again in English, please? It's not a complete 
>> sentence, and I don't know what you're trying to say.
>
> As irrelivant as any title of any picture.

No, Dave, I'm asking you to explain what the above sentence fragment was 
meant ot say. You've replied with something entirely different. Try again.

>> I don't know whether it was me or not. I don't honestly care either
way. 
>> I'm just creeped out by your apparent obsession with it.
>
> I'm not,

Good; then please drop the subject and don't bring it up again.

>> Why sdon't you just explain it? You've brought it up more than once, so

>> you clearly have some particular interest in it.
>
> It's about evidence and how it can be found.

No, it's really not.

H