ChatterBank0 min ago
AB 2.0 (or AB 2.5 if you are really counting)
43 Answers
Not seen a blog from the ed for 2 months and we are into March now, any updates? I notice that previous ed's blogs have seeminly been shifted, are these archived anywhere?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by dot.hawkes. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I didn't wish to view the AB Editor's Blog, O doggedly patronizing kempie. Why would I want to do that, when I can view such wit and wisdom as here?
I reasoned that if such rubbish as the said blogs was archived, so might the wit and wisdom be. There are Recent posts boxes on every page, so why would there not be the drop-down boxes whereof you speak on every page?
For the sake of doing your bit of patronizing, you have added to the barbs to my wonky eyes, and to my feelings. Happy?
I reasoned that if such rubbish as the said blogs was archived, so might the wit and wisdom be. There are Recent posts boxes on every page, so why would there not be the drop-down boxes whereof you speak on every page?
For the sake of doing your bit of patronizing, you have added to the barbs to my wonky eyes, and to my feelings. Happy?
O florid mallam, the placement of said drop-down boxes to enable access to previous Editor's Blogs outside of the eponymous topic section would negate the need for the very existence of that topic. The logic of such external placement is much like that of engaging in a thread, the focus of which ("such rubbish as the said blogs") holds no interest for you.
You reasoned that my writing "To access 'archived' blogs..." held hidden meaning beyond that conveyed by those four words and that your faulty reasoning is the fault of another. Mea maxima culpa. The faulty reasoning must be that those wishing to view the blogs would enter the relevant section to do so and that I did not allow for interlopers with no intention to enter said section.
Let there be no further ambiguity. To access 'archived' blogs (and nothing else) select a date from the drop-down boxes above the Recent posts box found within the AB Editor's Blog topic where such blogs (aka "rubbish") reside.
You reasoned that my writing "To access 'archived' blogs..." held hidden meaning beyond that conveyed by those four words and that your faulty reasoning is the fault of another. Mea maxima culpa. The faulty reasoning must be that those wishing to view the blogs would enter the relevant section to do so and that I did not allow for interlopers with no intention to enter said section.
Let there be no further ambiguity. To access 'archived' blogs (and nothing else) select a date from the drop-down boxes above the Recent posts box found within the AB Editor's Blog topic where such blogs (aka "rubbish") reside.
Here follows your floridity tutor�s mark sheet for your essay, kempie:
Part 1
> the placement of said drop-down boxes to enable access to previous Editor's Blogs outside of the eponymous topic section would negate the need for the very existence of that topic.
� irrelevancy: the reference was expressly NOT to drop-down boxes enabling access to the said blogs, but to the possibility of drop-down boxes enabling access to such wit and wisdom as here (an �AB suggestions� thread!) and on other NON-editorial threads.
> The logic of such external placement is much like that of engaging in a thread, the focus of which ("such rubbish as the said blogs") holds no interest for you.
� a fortiori irrelevant.
� Dele comma after thread. Its presence makes this a non-defining relative clause, meaning that it is the focus of any thread which holds no interest for you.
> You reasoned that my writing "To access 'archived' blogs..." held hidden meaning beyond that conveyed by those four words
� (a) speculation misrepresented as fact: you cannot know what I reasoned, but may or may not believe what I explicitly stated that I reasoned, namely that �if such rubbish as the said blogs was archived, so might the wit and wisdom be.� That says nothing about your meaning, hidden or otherwise, but everything that needed to be said about what I myself speculated on the strength of what you actually wrote, whatever the hell you meant by it.
� (b) counterfactuality: I did not so reason.
Part 1
> the placement of said drop-down boxes to enable access to previous Editor's Blogs outside of the eponymous topic section would negate the need for the very existence of that topic.
� irrelevancy: the reference was expressly NOT to drop-down boxes enabling access to the said blogs, but to the possibility of drop-down boxes enabling access to such wit and wisdom as here (an �AB suggestions� thread!) and on other NON-editorial threads.
> The logic of such external placement is much like that of engaging in a thread, the focus of which ("such rubbish as the said blogs") holds no interest for you.
� a fortiori irrelevant.
� Dele comma after thread. Its presence makes this a non-defining relative clause, meaning that it is the focus of any thread which holds no interest for you.
> You reasoned that my writing "To access 'archived' blogs..." held hidden meaning beyond that conveyed by those four words
� (a) speculation misrepresented as fact: you cannot know what I reasoned, but may or may not believe what I explicitly stated that I reasoned, namely that �if such rubbish as the said blogs was archived, so might the wit and wisdom be.� That says nothing about your meaning, hidden or otherwise, but everything that needed to be said about what I myself speculated on the strength of what you actually wrote, whatever the hell you meant by it.
� (b) counterfactuality: I did not so reason.
Part 2
> ...and [you also reasoned] that your faulty reasoning is the fault of another.
� (a) gibberish: to think and/or assert that one�s own faulty reasoning is the fault of another would not be reasoning at all, and if it were, it would be one�s own reasoning, and therefore faulty.
� (b) illogic: even if the �faulty� is your own value judgment and therefore not an integral part of the reported reasoning, to reason that one�s own reasoning, however ineffably reasonable, is the fault of another, is (oxy)moronic, as reasonable reasoning is not a fault in or of anyone at all, except of course in (but not of) Satan, the Lord of Unreason, whose representative you apparently are.
� (c) counterfactuality again: there was nothing faulty about my reasoning.
> Mea maxima culpa.
� (a) inappropriateness: Original Sin is not at issue here.
� (b) obfuscation: to dress one�s wolfish arguments up in Latinate sheep�s clothing is unworthy.
> The faulty reasoning must be that those wishing to view the blogs would enter the relevant section to do so
� falsity: there is nothing faulty about reasoning that those wishing to view the blogs would enter the relevant section to do so. BUT there is stunning faultiness in reasoning that ONLY those wishing to view the blogs would enter the relevant section, and my comments make it perfectly obvious that I was NOT someone �wishing to view the blogs�, but someone entering �the relevant section� to view the rude remarks about the rubbishy blogs.
> and [the faulty reasoning must be] that I did not allow for interlopers with no intention to enter said section.
� Uh? My above confession may conceivably confer interloper status upon me, but I had every intention of entering the said section, for the purposes above specified.
> ...and [you also reasoned] that your faulty reasoning is the fault of another.
� (a) gibberish: to think and/or assert that one�s own faulty reasoning is the fault of another would not be reasoning at all, and if it were, it would be one�s own reasoning, and therefore faulty.
� (b) illogic: even if the �faulty� is your own value judgment and therefore not an integral part of the reported reasoning, to reason that one�s own reasoning, however ineffably reasonable, is the fault of another, is (oxy)moronic, as reasonable reasoning is not a fault in or of anyone at all, except of course in (but not of) Satan, the Lord of Unreason, whose representative you apparently are.
� (c) counterfactuality again: there was nothing faulty about my reasoning.
> Mea maxima culpa.
� (a) inappropriateness: Original Sin is not at issue here.
� (b) obfuscation: to dress one�s wolfish arguments up in Latinate sheep�s clothing is unworthy.
> The faulty reasoning must be that those wishing to view the blogs would enter the relevant section to do so
� falsity: there is nothing faulty about reasoning that those wishing to view the blogs would enter the relevant section to do so. BUT there is stunning faultiness in reasoning that ONLY those wishing to view the blogs would enter the relevant section, and my comments make it perfectly obvious that I was NOT someone �wishing to view the blogs�, but someone entering �the relevant section� to view the rude remarks about the rubbishy blogs.
> and [the faulty reasoning must be] that I did not allow for interlopers with no intention to enter said section.
� Uh? My above confession may conceivably confer interloper status upon me, but I had every intention of entering the said section, for the purposes above specified.
Part 3
> Let there be no further ambiguity.
� wishful thinking: you seem to find it a bit difficult to avoid.
> To access 'archived' blogs (and nothing else) select a date from the drop-down boxes above the Recent posts box found within the AB Editor's Blog topic where such blogs (aka "rubbish") reside.
� Duh! That at least was clear, once I had been put right about my (quite obviously) false hope that the dates in the drop-down boxes, if I could find any in any sections at all, would enable me to access anything that is NOT rubbishy on this chaotic site.
> Let there be no further ambiguity.
� wishful thinking: you seem to find it a bit difficult to avoid.
> To access 'archived' blogs (and nothing else) select a date from the drop-down boxes above the Recent posts box found within the AB Editor's Blog topic where such blogs (aka "rubbish") reside.
� Duh! That at least was clear, once I had been put right about my (quite obviously) false hope that the dates in the drop-down boxes, if I could find any in any sections at all, would enable me to access anything that is NOT rubbishy on this chaotic site.
Ha-ha-haow pathetic!
You were dubbed �dogged� not for your one-sentence reply, but for your dogged patronization, which seems to be turning into something more infantile � I am not going to let you off with observations about mere doggedness and patronization.
So get your pea-pickin� fingers of my man-boobs!
Pick holes in your grammar, syntax etc. I did not. Your grammar, syntax etc. can do that for themselves, as they are virtually ostensive definitions of illogic and unreason. The attempted hole-picking has been all yours.
The last bastion of the n00b is accusations of n00bery, totally without support or even argument, let alone rebuttal, or even a gallant attempt at refutation of my arguments, which would of course be impossible.
You were dubbed �dogged� not for your one-sentence reply, but for your dogged patronization, which seems to be turning into something more infantile � I am not going to let you off with observations about mere doggedness and patronization.
So get your pea-pickin� fingers of my man-boobs!
Pick holes in your grammar, syntax etc. I did not. Your grammar, syntax etc. can do that for themselves, as they are virtually ostensive definitions of illogic and unreason. The attempted hole-picking has been all yours.
The last bastion of the n00b is accusations of n00bery, totally without support or even argument, let alone rebuttal, or even a gallant attempt at refutation of my arguments, which would of course be impossible.
Im afraid trying to enlist you is just a smarmy trick, dot. The sabotage, like the attempted hole-picking has been all Kempie�s, as is plain to see. He seems to have started on this tack by objecting to my totally innocuous first post on this thread, which was answered to my entire satisfaction by society, and I duly expressed my thanks for that answer in my next post, with the anodyne excuse that it hadn�t been clear from kempie's post that that you had to be on AB Editor's Blog page in order to see any drop-down box at all, which it hadn�t, had it? He seems to have taken that as a personal affront. Is he paranoid, do you think from your vastly greater experience of this site?
There immediately followed a totally unmerited blast of sarcasm from him, which you, dot, to your great credit, immediately tried to temper with your own observations of your own need for precise directions on this site, given its abysmal technology, after a great deal longer on it than me. No doubt you did this because it was as obvious to you as it was to me that his �apologies for not patronising� were in fact deeply patronizing.
I too then tried to temper the wind by expressing my hurt, although of course it was deeply sinful of me to make the sarcastic insincerity of the repudiation of patronization explicit!
Kempie responded with an intensification of the attack, with more sarcasm and outright insult, displaying grave faults not only in his character, but in his powers of reasoning, which perhaps explains why he has such constant recourse to bluster and obfuscation.
So I gave a patient and painstaking point-by-point refutation of his ostensible reasons for this attack, which he has again countered with bluster.
There immediately followed a totally unmerited blast of sarcasm from him, which you, dot, to your great credit, immediately tried to temper with your own observations of your own need for precise directions on this site, given its abysmal technology, after a great deal longer on it than me. No doubt you did this because it was as obvious to you as it was to me that his �apologies for not patronising� were in fact deeply patronizing.
I too then tried to temper the wind by expressing my hurt, although of course it was deeply sinful of me to make the sarcastic insincerity of the repudiation of patronization explicit!
Kempie responded with an intensification of the attack, with more sarcasm and outright insult, displaying grave faults not only in his character, but in his powers of reasoning, which perhaps explains why he has such constant recourse to bluster and obfuscation.
So I gave a patient and painstaking point-by-point refutation of his ostensible reasons for this attack, which he has again countered with bluster.
The above was not an equally unsavoury attempt to enlist you on my part, dot. I don't mind in the least if you don't understand the why, the how, or the what of such sabotage as there has been on this thread, but for Gawd�s sake don�t encourage kempie or for that matter me. I regret to say it's not like the clash of the Titans. More like the Zen koan of the clapping of one hand, in fact!
She has already earned mine, not only here but everywhere I have seen her. You have not, obviously. Now you appeal not only to the years of AB history which I have made it clear above were already obvious to me, but to my undisputed newbiehood, which has nothing to do with anything. Is that not precisely the supercilious attitude of which you accuse me? Once again it is all yours. You should be ashamed of yourself. You will have to set a better example to newbies than that!
Sorry, dot. I�m afraid my sanity may not be standing up to this very well even if my reason has been. I want to take this opportunity of saying that I am genuinely sorry for what has happened on your thread, but that I would after all like you to give it enough of a read to get some entertainment value out of it. You will find you can understand it and enjoy the laughs in it.
Sorry, dot. I�m afraid my sanity may not be standing up to this very well even if my reason has been. I want to take this opportunity of saying that I am genuinely sorry for what has happened on your thread, but that I would after all like you to give it enough of a read to get some entertainment value out of it. You will find you can understand it and enjoy the laughs in it.
