Mark Wallace said:
So is that. What are you trying to say?
"Classic non sequitur."
But, in point of fact, what I posted was not a non sequitur; it was an
honest, sarcastic comment.
Whoosh!
Whatserface@bookpro's
Barbara. See the text you quoted.
response to my reply to her vicious, abrasive,
scathing posting was, in fact, /incredibly/ unimpressive.
But she's bookpro. It probably took her a week to write her initial
posting, so any rapid response from her was bound to be unimpressive.
Whereas you take the enormous amount of time required to, oh, I don't
know, remove 97 lines of multiply-quoted text from your reply. Oh,
wait, no you don't; I'm thinking of me. Sorry.
Now, then, let's begin examining our unstated assumptions, shall we?
Let's start with "Barbara is trying to impress me".
After that we can look at "Barbara has access to a time machine", one of
the unstated assumptions behind the assertion that her initial posting
in this thread, a reply posted on June 12 to a message posted on June
12, took her a week to write. Another being "Barbara thinks I'm worth
spending a week drafting a reply to".
Of these three assumptions, only one has the slightest probability of
being true. Barbara, could you go back to 1996 and tell me to buy
shares in Apple? Thanks.
