Latest software here!!!!!

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=F6ran_Andersson?=]

Yes.

Ok, can you answer the question, then? Why did you present your opinion
as a fact?

 

[Peter Duniho]

Ok, can you answer the question, then? Why did you present your opinion
as a fact?

What part of my previous answer did you not understand?

You presented an opinion opposite of mine as fact. That's a factual
statement easily verified by looking at the thread. Given that fact and
my very clear, simple answer, there are two possibilities:

1) You know why you presented the opinion opposite of mine as fact,
in which case since that reason is the same as mine, you know the answer
already based on the response I provided.

2) You don't know why you presented the opinion opposite of mine as
fact, in which case you don't know the specific answer. If this is the
case, then please feel free to elaborate, explaining that you don't know
why you present the opinion opposite of mine as fact, and we can proceed
from there.

Pete

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=F6ran_Andersson?=]

What part of my previous answer did you not understand?

The part where it didn't make any sense at all, which means all of it.

You presented an opinion opposite of mine as fact.

No, I didn't. I never said that my opinion was a fact. You presented
your opinion and specifically stated that it was a fact, but I never did
that.

That's a factual
statement easily verified by looking at the thread.

How? I never said that my opinion was a fact, so how can you look at the
thread and say that?

 

[Peter Duniho]

No, I didn't. I never said that my opinion was a fact.

I suppose it was some other Göran Andersson who wrote this then (among
similar statements):

I didn't reply to spam. I replied to a reply to spam.

Sure looks like a statement of fact to me.

How? I never said that my opinion was a fact, so how can you look at the
thread and say that?

You wrote a number of times that you did not reply to spam, and not once
did you qualify your statement as stating that claim as opinion.

Your statement is either obviously one of opinion, in which case so too
are the ones I made and which you accuse me of stating as fact.
Conversely, if you are going to insist that my statements can only be
interpreted as statements of fact, then so too can your statements only
be interpreted as statements of fact.

Here's a fact for you: you have for some reason gotten all upset over
nothing. There's clearly a difference of opinion and I'm fine with
that, but your insistence on perpetuating that disagreement as if it
were intractable and worth arguing about is just stupid.

I apologize for offending you. But I still wish you, and everyone else,
would not quote spam when they reply to threads started as spam, and I'd
prefer they not reply to spam at all.

If you still feel at this point that you didn't do any such thing.
Fine. I disagree, and I will disagree until the end of time, but it
doesn't really matter whether we agree on what you did or did not do.

I am also sorry that you cannot simply accept this disagreement, but at
this point it's clear that you are only interested in degenerating the
discussion of the disagreement into a pointless argument about _how_
something was written. If the clarifications I've provided so far
aren't sufficient for you, too bad. You will just have to deal with
that. Any offense you are feeling is strictly self-inflicted, and I'm
done trying to help you understand that.

Pete

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=F6ran_Andersson?=]

I suppose it was some other Göran Andersson who wrote this then (among
similar statements):



Sure looks like a statement of fact to me.

It doesn't say that it's a fact.

You wrote a number of times that you did not reply to spam, and not once
did you qualify your statement as stating that claim as opinion.

Not once did I qualify my statements as fact. You did, however. Or
perhaps it was some other Peter Duniho that wrote:

He's talking about the fact that you replied to spam

Sure looks like a statement of fact to me. In contrast to everything I
wrote, where I never referred to my opinion as fact.

Your statement is either obviously one of opinion, in which case so too
are the ones I made and which you accuse me of stating as fact.

You specifically stated that it was a fact. It doesn't get much more
obvious than that.