Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TimeofSilks

Prim count possibly?

Recommended Posts

I thought you'd stopped posting in this thread lol.


Griffin Ceawlin wrote:

A brief timeline for anyone just joining us who decides to skip ahead to the end of the thread here:

I did suggest to the person who wanted to know how the OP could have possibly known who the creator of the gacha re-sale item was that they could use Google (never mind that the Marketplace store name is not only in the item listing name but in the graphic that the re-seller lifted from the creator). I further suggested that the OP could have found the answer to their own question, also by using Google.

You seem to have forgotten the OP's question. S/he wanted to know the prim count, not the creator.

You, Phil, said that you never would have thought of searching for the answer using a search engine and that I should just answer OP's question and not be "hard" on them.

I wouldn't have thought of using a search engine to find the prim count of anything. The reason I said not to be so hard on the OP was because you posted that you'd found the answer but you specifically refused to post it "
on principle
". I think asking you not to be so hard on the OP was very reasonable.

I then posted a link that went right to a Google search results page that showed the prim count of the item in question on the results page.

No you didn't. You posted a link that went to a page where a search engine could be selected from half a dozen choices. At least I think they could be selected. I didn't click on any. I closed the page because it wasn't what you said it was. If I hadn't closed the page, then, after a significant delay, it would have gone to Google's search results page after going through a stupid rigmarole, but that wasn't obvious so I didn't wait that significant delay and I closed the page. I thought that the engine choices was all there was. It was an idiotic thing to link to.

You, Phil, said "but sadly not how many prims are used in the" item in question.

That's because the page your link went to didn't show any information. And I was right. You were wrong.

I said... hmmmmnope. There's the prim count right there on the first page, while wondering if perhaps you were blind.

No it wasn't - not on the page you linked to. I wasn't blind.

You, Phil, said "what searchterm?" and some nonsense about how it has nothing to do with Google and Google knows nothing and blah blah blah.

That's right. Everything I said was correct. But I went back to the page you linked to, waited a while, and then saw the stupid process, and I ended up on Google's results page. It did show a few prim counts concerning the item the OP was asking about, but not what the OP asked for. Remember the OP's picture? It's still there. There are many items in it, and there was, and still is, no way for any of us to know which item s/he meant. I thought that the picture was one total item consisting of many parts, each of which has a prim count. That may be what it is. So what you said was right there in the results page wasn't there at all. Only a bit was.

It's true that clicking on the result reaches a page where all the parts are listed with their prim counts. At least I think they are - I didn't study it.

I then laid out the reasoning that might lead someone to use Google to find the prim count of the item in question (or similar items). In short: people blog crap.

Yep. But I believe that I was the first to mention the possibility of a blog
;)

I added that even though I am a "Recognized Helper" (a rank which I could not care less about but, in your and apparently other people's view, Phil, seems to confer some extra responsibility on me, to which I say tosh) I do not have to enable other people's laziness (in which I include your own, Phil), which one poster characterized as "dramatic" and which you later seize upon as an example of how very "mean" I am.

You were mean to the OP. You went and found what you thought was the answer that the OP was seeking, stated that you'd found the answer, and specifically refused to post it. There's no other word for it. It was mean.

And no, being a Recognised Helper is nothing to do with you. You didn't ask for it, you probably can't get rid of it, and you don't have to be helpful because of it. But there's no need to be mean. You didn't have to reply at all. The OP did learn from your post, so some good came of it, but there was no need to withhold what you believed was the answer when you'd gone out and found it.

Just one more thing in this bit. You've said more than once that the OP was lazy, but that is totally untrue. You youself said the answer could be found in less time that it took the OP to write the post, and you were right. So it's wasn't laziness that caused him/her to post the question. It was a lack of knowledge. Suggesting that the OP was lazy (more than once) just added to your meanness.

You, Phil, then said that I "talk a load of rubbish" and tried to tell me that I was "wrong" (which I wasn't), that the Google search results page did not show the prim count (which it did).

I've just explained that you
didn't
link to a Google results page (known as serp, btw -
s
earch
e
ngine
r
esults
p
age) and that the page you linked to didn't contain the answer. Also, the results page, when you finally got there, only conatined a small part of the answer.

You, Phil, further stated that the link I posted was "idiotic... stupidity incarnate" and that I "seem to imagine that a search engine is the way to discover how many prims an SL object uses
(which it sometimes is, isn't it?)
and, therefore, people should use that method" (which I generally do not, but...).

Posting that link in this thread
was
"
idiotic...stupidity incarnate
". That's been made very clear already. You were kust trying to be smart - and, as someone said, condescending. It wasn't your finest hour, was it? lol

You, Phil, did allow that "on this occasion there was some information to be had but that was just lucky" but that "it's not a method that people can use because it's not a method at all" (but that apparently sometimes is).

And I'm right about that
:)

You then, Phil, proceeded to tell another poster that "you can't find prim counts through a search engine" but that "you can find lots of stuff through search engines though, so it's always worth trying it."

Correct.

Next, you describe my "initial post as being intentionally negative, and pretty much accusative, towards the OP" and say that "[my] replies to [you] confirm that view" (when really what they overwhelmingly do is prove how wrong you are) and that "even the link
included was extremely patronising - and utterly stupid."

Also correct.

Then you come to the defense of Talligurl, who advocates ignoring posts one doesn't like while seeming to be incapable of doing so herself.

You were mean about Talligirl because she criticised you. Of course I'm going to find fault with you over it.

Skip ahead a couple posts and we find that it wasn't the link that I posted that was stupid, it was me that was stupid for posting it and that my "reply to the OP
(who I have yet to address)
was idiotic."

Quite correct.

I'm sorry, Phil, what was that you were saying about being negative? (Not that I give a flying **bleep** what you think of me.)

Oh I can be negative given the circumstances, but I'm not mean like you intentionally were in this thread.

Along the way you excused your meanness by saying that you were very bored, and twice suggested that the meds you're on may be the cause. You have seemed to recognise your meanness in this thread but you still keep on trying to make out that it didn't exist, in spite of the fact that it's all still there in this thread. You're problem really is that you can't stand to be criticised. Your first post could have been very different and still not have posted the prim counts (which you didn't know, anyway), by simply pointing to the Google results page or, better still, the blog page that listed them all, and telling the OP how you found it. You didn't have to suggest that the OP was lazy, and that you're not going to post the answer "on principle". Meds and/or boredness may have been the reason, but it's not an excuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


flowersforkain wrote:

Of all the things you've got going for you - your personal accomplishments that hard won credentials and years of expertise and references can vouch for - devaluing a persons self worth is (and this is no mean feat) what you are best at.

 

Take a bow. It's rightfully earned.

I don't devalue anyone's self-worth. But if you are mean to someone who doesn't deserve it, then you'll be found fault with by people here. It's nothing more than that. I wasn't the only one, remember.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


flowersforkain wrote:

Of all the things you've got going for you - your personal accomplishments that hard won credentials and years of expertise and references can vouch for - devaluing a persons self worth is (and this is no mean feat) what you are best at.

 

Take a bow. It's rightfully earned.

See what I mean?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:

 It did show a few prim counts concerning the item the OP was asking about, but not what the OP asked for. Remember the OP's picture? It's still there. There are many items in it, and there was, and still is, no way for any of us to know which item s/he meant. I thought that the picture was one total item consisting of many parts, each of which has a prim count.


You are being purposely dense, Phil. Either that or you have no idea how Gatchas work. It says 1. Treehouse RARE. That means  Item 1 from the picture, which is the Treehouse. Which does indeed show up in the search Griff did as having 16 prims.

If you didn't know what they were referring to, why did you post? Just to feel all high and mighty as usual?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know what gatchas are but I've never had anything to do with them. I've never even seen one. I already said what I assumed the picture to be.

I posted because he was mean to the OP, and that's ALL I've posted about. I wasn't the only one who expressed a similar opinion, and I don't think posting about it was at all unreasonable. It's pretty much the norm in this forum. Read his first post in the thread if you've forgotten what he wrote. Perhaps you are a friend of his and feel the need to defend him, but it's indefensible. He tried to defend it by suggesting that it might have been caused by the meds he's on, and the fact that he was very bored. They may be the reason for his meanness, but they don't excuse it. He would have been much better of to either ignore my post or say sorry to the OP, even though his post wasn't directed at the OP. Instead he chose to defend his meanness.

I'm sorry if you think that someone finding fault with unmerited meanness is wrong. I don't think it's wrong, and your view won't change my view. He escalted it. My first post to him was perfectly calm, but he didn't like being found fault with. Whether he likes it or not, the fault remains his.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:

I thought you'd stopped posting in this thread lol.


Oh? Did I say that I wouldn't be back, Phil?


You seem to have forgotten the OP's question. S/he wanted to know the prim count, not the creator.


You seem to have forgotten that my reply was not addressed to the OP, Phil. Read back.


I wouldn't have thought of using a search engine to find the prim count of anything.


Yeah, we've covered that.


The reason I said not to be so hard on the OP was because you posted that you'd found the answer but you specifically refused to post it "
on principle
". I think asking you not to be so hard on the OP was very reasonable.


Awwww, poor OP, who I suggested could have found the answer to her question in less time than it took them to type out their post.


No you didn't. You posted a link that went to a page where a search engine could be selected from half a dozen choices. At least I think they could be selected. I didn't click on any. I closed the page because it wasn't what you said it was. If I hadn't closed the page, then, after a significant delay, it would have gone to Google's search results page after going through a stupid rigmarole, but that wasn't obvious so I didn't wait that significant delay and I closed the page. I thought that the engine choices was all there was. It was an idiotic thing to link to.


Whose fault is it that you're impatient, Phil, if not yours? Thinking otherwise is what is idiotic.


That's because the page your link went to didn't show any information. And I was right. You were wrong.


Still going with that story, huh? "Durrrrrr, I was too stupid to let the page finish loading and so you were wrong." WRONG, Phil.


No it wasn't - not on the page you linked to. I wasn't blind.


See above. Stupid.


That's right. Everything I said was correct. But I went back to the page you linked to, waited a while, and then saw the stupid process, and I ended up on Google's results page. It did show a few prim counts concerning the item the OP was asking about, but not what the OP asked for. Remember the OP's picture? It's still there. There are many items in it, and there was, and still is, no way for any of us to know which item s/he meant. I thought that the picture was one total item consisting of many parts, each of which has a prim count. That may be what it is. So what you said was right there in the results page wasn't there at all. Only a bit was.

It's true that clicking on the result reaches a page where all the parts are listed with their prim counts. At least I think they are - I didn't study it.


You really can't stand to be wrong, can you? Even when it's quite clear that you are.

The item that OP linked to on Marketplace and was looking for the prim count of was ~*Buglets*~ 1. Treehouse RARE. That's one single item, Phil, as previously stated. Or are you too lazy - yep, lazy - to look at the graphic that's still there?


Yep. But I believe that I was the first to mention the possibility of a blog
;)


And? Does that mean nobody else might consider that it might appear on a blog somewhere? Where did you think the links (apart from the Marketplace ones) on the Google search results went to?

But yes, you were "the first to mention the possibility of a blog." Bravo, Phil. Bravo.


You were mean to the OP. You went and found what you thought was the answer that the OP was seeking, stated that you'd found the answer, and specifically refused to post it. There's no other word for it. It was mean.


Awwww. Poor OP.


You didn't have to reply at all.


Yep. And neither did you. It was my choice to.


The OP did learn from your post, so some good came of it, but there was no need to withhold what you believed was the answer when you'd gone out and found it.


Again, my choice to. Deal with it.


Just one more thing in this bit. You've said more than once that the OP was lazy, but that is totally untrue. You youself said the answer could be found in less time that it took the OP to write the post, and you were right. So it's wasn't laziness that caused him/her to post the question. It was a lack of knowledge. Suggesting that the OP was lazy (more than once) just added to your meanness.


Once more:

Awwww, poor OP, who I suggested could have found the answer to her question in less time than it took them to type out their post.

Let's have a pity party. And then we can all cheer you, Phil, the white knight of the Second Life Forums.


I've just explained that you
didn't
link to a Google results page (known as serp, btw -
s
earch
e
ngine
r
esults
p
age) and that the page you linked to didn't contain the answer.


And I explained to you that the Google search results page (nobody that I know calls a search engine results page a SERP) did contain the answer to OPs question. The fact that you were too impatient to let the page finish loading is not my problem, or anyone else's problem but your own.


Also, the results page, when you finally got there, only conatined a small part of the answer.


Wrong, Phil. See above.


Posting that link in this thread
was
"
idiotic...stupidity incarnate
". That's been made very clear already. You were kust trying to be smart - and, as someone said, condescending. It wasn't your finest hour, was it? lol


What was "idiotic...stupidity incarnate", Phil was your being so impatient that you closed it before it finished loading.

(And I find you, Phil, based on this thread alone, eminently worthy of condescension. Congrats.)


You were mean about Talligirl because she criticised you. Of course I'm going to find fault with you over it.


How exactly was it mean to point out to Talligurl, who suggested that I could just ignore, that she doesn't seem capable of doing the same?


Skip ahead a couple posts and we find that it wasn't the link that I posted that was stupid, it was me that was stupid for posting it and that my "reply to the OP
(who I have yet to address)
was idiotic."

Quite correct.


Yes, it is quite correct that I have yet to address the OP. The rest is subbjective, Phil, and you are not the arbiter of all. Sorry, but you're not.


Your first post could have been very different and still not have posted the prim counts (which you didn't know, anyway), ...


Pardon? Right there on the Google search results page (oh, I'm sorry; SERP), Phil. Keep up.


... by simply pointing to the Google results page or, better still, the blog page that listed them all, and telling the OP how you found it. You didn't have to suggest that the OP was lazy, and that you're not going to post the answer "
on principle
". Meds and/or boredness may have been the reason, but it's not an excuse.


Blah blah blah. TFB. Get the **bleep** over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in brown.


Griffin Ceawlin wrote:

You seem to have forgotten the OP's question. S/he wanted to know the prim count, not the creator.


You seem to have forgotten that my reply was not addressed to the OP, Phil. Read back.

What I replied to indicated that you were thinking that the OP wanted to know who the creator is. Read back
;)
The reason I said not to be so hard on the OP was because you posted that you'd found the answer but you specifically refused to post it "
on principle
". I think asking you not to be so hard on the OP was very reasonable.


Awwww, poor OP, who I suggested could have found the answer to her question in less time than it took them to type out their post.

Yep. You were mean to the OP. And that's what all these posts have been about. Meanness didn't do you any good at all, did it?

No you didn't. You posted a link that went to a page where a search engine could be selected from half a dozen choices. At least I think they could be selected. I didn't click on any. I closed the page because it wasn't what you said it was. If I hadn't closed the page, then, after a significant delay, it would have gone to Google's search results page after going through a stupid rigmarole, but that wasn't obvious so I didn't wait that significant delay and I closed the page. I thought that the engine choices was all there was. It was an idiotic thing to link to.


Whose fault is it that you're impatient, Phil, if not yours? Thinking otherwise is what is idiotic.

Nonsense. You posted a link to a page that waited, claiming that it was a link to the results page. And you still claim that it went to straight the results page. It was an idiotic thing to do. Closing the page that waited was perfectly sensible, of course, because it wasn't obvious that something would happen in a little while.

That's because the page your link went to didn't show any information. And I was right. You were wrong.


Still going with that story, huh? "Durrrrrr, I was too stupid to let the page finish loading and so you were wrong." WRONG, Phil.

That "story" was the truth. The page had visually loaded. There was nothing else to see on it. If you don't believe me, go and have a look. You linked to it so you know where to find it. You're not very good at this, are you?
;)

No it wasn't - not on the page you linked to. I wasn't blind.


See above. Stupid.

See above, where I said that you are not very good at this LOL. Also, go and check the page again. What you claim about it is absolutely wrong.

That's right. Everything I said was correct. But I went back to the page you linked to, waited a while, and then saw the stupid process, and I ended up on Google's results page. It did show a few prim counts concerning the item the OP was asking about, but not what the OP asked for. Remember the OP's picture? It's still there. There are many items in it, and there was, and still is, no way for any of us to know which item s/he meant. I thought that the picture was one total item consisting of many parts, each of which has a prim count. That may be what it is. So what you said was right there in the results page wasn't there at all. Only a bit was.

It's true that clicking on the result reaches a page where all the parts are listed with their prim counts. At least I think they are - I didn't study it.


You really can't stand to be wrong, can you? Even when it's quite clear that you are.

LMAO. That's a common technique of the defeated - I say something about you, and then you (the defeated) come back saying the same about me. You can't escape it that way
:D
  You were mean to the OP, and you can't change that no matter what you say. How many posts have we written whilst you've unsuccessfully tried to wriggle out of it? Way too many. You'd have been much better off if you'd accepted it in the first place. Twice you've blamed the meds you're on for it, but at the same time, and for some peculiar reason that only you can understand, you continue to argue the toss about it. You need to get real.

The item that OP linked to on Marketplace and was looking for the prim count of was
~*Buglets*~ 1. Treehouse RARE
. That's one single item, Phil, as previously stated. Or are you too lazy - yep, lazy - to look at the graphic that's still there?

The picture that the OP linked to showed many items. On closer inspection, it does appear that you are right about what the OP wanted to know. It doesn't change anything though. You were unnecessarilly mean to the OP, and a number of us were critical of you for it. That's ALL that this is about. You really should learn to own your mistakes.

Yep. But I believe that I was the first to mention the possibility of a blog
;)

And? Does that mean nobody else might consider that it might appear on a blog somewhere? Where did you think the links (apart from the Marketplace ones) on the Google search results went to?

But yes, you were "the first to mention the possibility of a blog." Bravo, Phil. Bravo.

Thank you
:)
You wrote as though you had taught me about the possibility of blogs concerning this.

You were mean to the OP. You went and found what you thought was the answer that the OP was seeking, stated that you'd found the answer, and specifically refused to post it. There's no other word for it. It was mean.


Awwww. Poor OP.

That's been your attitude all the way through. It doesn't speak well of you, does it?

You didn't have to reply at all.


Yep. And neither did you. It was my choice to.

Yep. You chose to be mean to the OP, and I chose to criticise you for it. We are both responsible for our own choices. I chose the 'good' side.


Just one more thing in this bit. You've said more than once that the OP was lazy, but that is totally untrue. You youself said the answer could be found in less time that it took the OP to write the post, and you were right. So it's wasn't laziness that caused him/her to post the question. It was a lack of knowledge. Suggesting that the OP was lazy (more than once) just added to your meanness.


Once more:

Awwww, poor OP, who I suggested could have found the answer to her question in less time than it took them to type out their post.

Let's have a pity party. And then we can all cheer you, Phil, the white knight of the Second Life Forums.

You also stated that you'd found the answer to the OP's question, and that you refused to answer the question for him/her. Brilliant! Not many people could hope to come up with such meanness.

I've just explained that you
didn't
link to a Google results page (known as serp, btw -
s
earch
e
ngine
r
esults
p
age) and that the page you linked to didn't contain the answer.


And I explained to you that the Google search results page (nobody that I know calls a search engine results page a SERP) did contain the answer to OPs question. The fact that you were too impatient to let the page finish loading is not my problem, or anyone else's problem but your own.

SERPS is what those in the search engine business call them. The page loaded and was displayed. There was no indication that anything would happen after a while, so there was no obvious need not to close it. It was sheer stupidity to link to it, and even more stupidity to claim, and
still
claim, that you linked directly to the results page. But, as you like to point out, it was your choice to do that.

Also, the results page, when you finally got there, only conatined a small part of the answer.


Wrong, Phil. See above.

If the OP only wanted the prim of one item in the picture, and it does look likely, then I concede that you were right about that.

Posting that link in this thread
was
"
idiotic...stupidity incarnate
". That's been made very clear already. You were kust trying to be smart - and, as someone said, condescending. It wasn't your finest hour, was it? lol


What was "idiotic...stupidity incarnate", Phil was your being so impatient that you closed it before it finished loading.

No, there was no impatience on my part. The page had loaded. There was nothing in it of any value, and no indication that anything would happen if I waited. Anyone would have closed it. If you'd said something to effect of "wait for the page to start", then I'd have waited. But you didn't.

You were mean about Talligirl because she criticised you. Of course I'm going to find fault with you over it.


How exactly was it mean to point out to Talligurl, who suggested that I could just ignore, that she doesn't seem capable of doing the same?

What Talligirl had written in the past was irrelevant. I did look at the her post that you linked to, and I didn't quite see what you meant, but that didn't necessarily invalidate it. Nevertheless, what she wrote in this thread was what loads of people have written in this forum. She wasn't out of step. She was very much in step when with forum attitudes when people wrote posts like you did. As I said earlier, you could have helped the OP by pointing out how to find the answer. You really didn't have to write the "on principle" and "laziness" part. You did it wrong, and this is what you got for it.

Yes, it is quite correct that I have yet to address the OP. The rest is subbjective, Phil, and you are not the arbiter of all. Sorry, but you're not.

No I'm not. But I am the arbiter of my own opinions, and, in this case, my opinion is the positive one. People are often told not to post if they have nothing good to say, and rightly so. Your post was half and half. Although you didn't address the OP directly, you did point out that the answer could be found in Google. That was the good part. But then you ruined it by stating that you would not post the answer "on principle" because of the OP's "laziness". That was the bad part, and that's where you went wrong. It was unnecessary and unmerited, and totally wrong, because, as I explained earlier, the OP was NOT lazy.

... by simply pointing to the Google results page or, better still, the blog page that listed them all, and telling the OP how you found it. You didn't have to suggest that the OP was lazy, and that you're not going to post the answer "
on principle
". Meds and/or boredness may have been the reason, but it's not an excuse.


Blah blah blah. TFB. Get the **bleep** over it.

No answer to that? Previously you twice blamed your meds, effectively admitting that you did it wrongly. Why you're continuing this, I can't imagine.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:

I'm in brown.

Griffin Ceawlin wrote:

You seem to have forgotten that my reply was not addressed to the OP, Phil. Read back.

What I replied to indicated that you were thinking that the OP wanted to know who the creator is. Read back
;)

What?

I did suggest to the person who wanted to know how the OP could have possibly known who the creator of the gacha re-sale item was that they could use Google (never mind that the Marketplace store name is not only in the item listing name but in the graphic that the re-seller lifted from the creator). I further suggested that the OP could have found the answer to their own question, also by using Google.

Where did I say (above, which is what you replied to, or anywhere else for that matter) that it was the OP who wanted to know who the creator was, Phil? You're reading stuff that just isn't there.


You were mean to the OP. And that's what all these posts have been about.


No. Actually, most of this bull**bleep**e has been about you pretending that you aren't wrong, Phil.


Whose fault is it that you're impatient, Phil, if not yours? Thinking otherwise is what is idiotic.

Nonsense. You posted a link to a page that waited, claiming that it was a link to the results page. And you still claim that it went to straight the results page. It was an idiotic thing to do. Closing the page that waited was perfectly sensible, of course, because it wasn't obvious that something would happen in a little while.


If you waited, it does go to the results page. But you know that.

I did say once that the link "went right to a Google search results page" and with one redirect (have you never come across a page redirect before??? and you worked in SEO???), it does.


It was an idiotic thing to do. Closing the page that waited was perfectly sensible, of course, because it wasn't obvious that something would happen in a little while.


In hindsight, closing the page, especially when you came back and posted not one but two replies before actually going back and letting the page load is what was idiotic.


Still going with that story, huh? "Durrrrrr, I was too stupid to let the page finish loading and so you were wrong." WRONG, Phil.

That "story" was the truth. The page had visually loaded. There was nothing else to see on it. If you don't believe me, go and have a look. You linked to it so you know where to find it.


Here's the link, Phil:

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=~*Buglets*~+1.+Treehouse+RARE

It loads perfectly. It goes to the URL above and then redirects to:

https://www.google.com/search?q=~*Buglets*~+1.+Treehouse+RARE

So, yep. The story that you were "too stupid to let the page finish loading" is the truth.


You really can't stand to be wrong, can you? Even when it's quite clear that you are.

LMAO. That's a common technique of the defeated - I say something about you, and then you (the defeated) come back saying the same about me.


You said that I can't stand to be criticized.

Nothing about that changes the fact that were and are wrong, Phil.


You were mean to the OP, and you can't change that no matter what you say.


I believe I stated what my feelings are about that but here it is again:

TFB. Get the **bleep** over it, Phil.


How many posts have we written whilst you've unsuccessfully tried to wriggle out of it? Way too many. You'd have been much better off if you'd accepted it in the first place. Twice you've blamed the meds you're on for it, but at the same time, and for some peculiar reason that only you can understand, you continue to argue the toss about it.


What I've been "arguing the toss about," Phil, is that you are and were wrong.

BTW. I believe I mentioned meds once (and mentioned being sick once before that). Do you always read things that aren't there?


You need to get real.

You're the one that reads things that aren't there.


The picture that the OP linked to showed many items. On closer inspection, it does appear that you are right about what the OP wanted to know.


Oh, finally got that through your thick skull, did you?


You were unnecessarilly mean to the OP, and a number of us were critical of you for it.

TFB. Get the **bleep** over it, Phil.


That's ALL that this is about.


No, Phil, it's about you being wrong and reading things that aren't there.


And? Does that mean nobody else might consider that it might appear on a blog somewhere? Where did you think the links (apart from the Marketplace ones) on the Google search results went to?

But yes, you were "the first to mention the possibility of a blog." Bravo, Phil. Bravo.

Thank you
:)
You wrote as though you had taught me about the possibility of blogs concerning this.


WTF are you talking about? You really are quite dense, aren't you?


Awwww. Poor OP.

That's been your attitude all the way through.


TFB. Get the **bleep** over it, Phil.


Awwww, poor OP, who I suggested could have found the answer to her question in less time than it took them to type out their post.

Let's have a pity party. And then we can all cheer you, Phil, the white knight of the Second Life Forums.

You also stated that you'd found the answer to the OP's question, and that you refused to answer the question for him/her. Brilliant! Not many people could hope to come up with such meanness.


Awwww. Poor OP. Soooooo meeeeean.

TFB. Get the **bleep** over it, Phil.


As I said earlier, you could have helped the OP by pointing out how to find the answer. You really didn't have to write the "on principle" and "laziness" part.


Awwww. Poor OP. Soooooo meeeeean.

TFB. Get the **bleep** over it, Phil.


Although you didn't address the OP directly, you did point out that the answer could be found in Google. That was the good part. But then you ruined it by stating that you would not post the answer "on principle" because of the OP's "laziness". That was the bad part, and that's where you went wrong. It was unnecessary and unmerited, and totally wrong, because, as I explained earlier, the OP was NOT lazy.


Awwww. Poor OP. Soooooo meeeeean.

TFB. Get the **bleep** over it, Phil.


Blah blah blah. TFB. Get the **bleep** over it.

No answer to that? Previously you twice blamed your meds, effectively admitting that you did it wrongly. Why you're continuing this, I can't imagine.


That is my answer to that, Phil. If you can't understand that by now, you're more dense than anyone could have ever imagined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil, I know you love a good debate, but I have to say this is getting sad. You both are acting silly -- dragging this out so long -- but you just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper. I know your image matters to you -- that you are perceived as brilliant, amazing at debate, etc. You are really tarnishing that image by continuing with this foolishness. Stick to the battles that you have a chance of winning. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Nalytha wrote:

Phil, I know you love a good debate, but I have to say this is getting sad. You both are acting silly -- dragging this out so long -- but you just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper. I know your image matters to you -- that you are perceived as brilliant, amazing at debate, etc. You are really tarnishing that image by continuing with this foolishness. Stick to the battles that you have a chance of winning. 

I don't care about image, and I always stick to debates that I can win. In this particular case, I won this one from the word go. He was mean to the OP, I pointed it out (as did other people), and that was that. It's like someone saying that snow is black. When someone else points out that it's actually white, and not black, the debate is won by that someone else. This debate is as clear as that. He effectively admitted it by suggesting that his meds and boredom caused him to be mean. Anyway, it's gone on long enough. I'll make one more post after this one and call it a day. I'm astonished that anyone is still reading it lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has gone on long enough. You made a mean post about the OP, and I pointed it out. That's all there was. Game, set and match to me :)

This is my last post in this thread, so you can have the last word if you like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...