Re: Weekly posting summary

"H Duffy" <hester_duffy@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:674aeaF2mgbshU1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "whisky-dave" <whisky-dave@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
> news:fui185$838$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> "H Duffy" <hester_duffy@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>> news:66s79iF2lif48U1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>> But you didn't make it clear that the description didn't match the 
>>>>> picture.
>>>> How did yuo work that one out ?
>>>
>>> You said so, you dope; according to you, the description said it was
me 
>>> wearing a Whisky Dave mask,
>> That's what the title said, whetehr or not it's an adequate description

>> I'd leave up to
>> the viewer.
>
> But you've said that no-one in the picture was wearing a Whisky Dave
mask. 
> Therefore, according to whar you've said, the description was not 
> accurate. Seriously, Dave, why are you even arguing with that?
How many more times the description or rather the title or perhaps the 
comments
were not accurate, but they didn;t need to be in order to locate the 
picture.
Why are you having such problems understanding this.
When my friend found this picture he was not looking for masks
or a picture of you or pictures taken in Whitby.
So try explaining again what problems you're having understanding this.

>>>Therefore, the description didn't match the picture. Do you need a 
>>>clearer explanation than that?
>> So.
>> I never said the description matched the picture and have never said 
>> that.
>
> But when I said that the description wasn't accurate, you said "How did 
> yuo work that one out ?"
> That does rather imply that you thought I was wrong. When clearly I 
> wasn't.

I asked you because you said you hadn't seen the picture so my point was
how did you know the description wasn;t accurate if you hadn't seen the 
picture.
At one point you claimed it didn't exist.


>>> Eh? You're making no sense at all.
>> How would I have recognised you, if you were wearing a mask ?
>
> You wouldn't. What's your point?
That the picture has a certain accuracy I believe in that it was a picture

of you,
but no sign of a WD mask though.


>>> If you made it clear from the beginning that there was no mask,
>> So you believe in Whisky dave masks, and they are avilible in whitby or
>> at least seen in whitby.
>
> *sigh* I assumed you meant someone had printed out a picture on paper
and 
> made a mask out of it.
Not sure why you assumed that.

> It's really not that hard to do, is it? You described the photo as
showing 
> someone in a Whisky Dave mask, therefore, I assumed there was a Whisky 
> Dave mask. Because I took you at your word.
But I never said that did I.

> Because if I don't, you whine like a kicked *****.
Well I'm not sure what a kicked ***** sounds like, is it anything like
a studetn complaining when you throw them out the lab because it's closing

time.


>
> Now, seriously, can we drop this subject? You're trying to make out that

> you were absolutely clear and right all along, when you very obviously 
> weren't,
But that wasn';t my claim.
My point was that if soemthing disapears as in a link that is no
proof that the link never existed or that anything in that link never 
existed.

> and you've also xclaimed you're not obsessing over that picture,a nd yet

> you won't drop the subject, and it's creeeping me out. Drop it now.

yes I heard someone else  has told you about picture and the actual
contents, so maybe with that in mind it is best to drop it.