On 2007-12-08 02:24:11 +0700, "Tom" <dantoPAYATTENTIONmel@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
said:
>
> "Richard Ellis" <RichardEllis1999@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:2007120801204216807-RichardEllis1999@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On 2007-12-06 23:03:23 +0700, "Tom" <dantoPAYATTENTIONmel@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> said:
>>
>>>
>>> "Richard Ellis" <RichardEllis1999@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>> news:2007120616282416807-RichardEllis1999@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> On 2007-12-05 23:27:19 +0700, "Tom"
<dantoPAYATTENTIONmel@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>> said:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Richard Ellis" <RichardEllis1999@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>> news:2007120523212075249->
>>>>>> I will more or less quote you
>>>>>
>>>>> No, Richard. You are either quoting me exactly or you're not
quoting
>>>>> me
>>>>> at
>>>>> all. Is that comprehensible to you?
>>>>
>>>> Oh dear. Should I have said 'paraphrase'?
>>>
>>> No, given what you tried to pass off as a "quote", you should have
said,
>>> "misinterpret" or "misrepresent".
>>
>> Oh.
>>
>> Paraphrase is better I think.
>
> Better if you still hope to persuade anyone that you're not full of
****,
> which, unfortunately, you are.
>
>> Misinterpret doesnt work at all and misrepresent is perjorative.
>
> Both are far too accurate for you.
Yeah, you are probably right. Still, look on the bright side... it
makes you feel good to say so, so it isn't all a loss. I am happy you
are happy. You *are* happy aren't you Tom? In spite of it all?
--
Rich
|
