Access to Wireless LAN ...

[Paul Lutus]

No, I was mostly right,

You know, people can read the thread for themselves. It isn't as though this
is Monday morning and you are discussing what you did or didn't say while
under the influence on saturday night. IOW hyperbole has no place where
there is so much evidence readily available.

except for accepting a common innacurate
terminology used by the original poster, on which you subsequently
focused to the exclusion of everything else.

It was you who focused entirely on that, not me, and as the thread proves. I
merely replied with evidence.

The sin is obsession with proving me wrong

You were intent on proving me wrong, but you don't know how to argue or
produce evidence, so you failed. You were also entirely wrong, but this is
not fatal to an argument if someone understands debate.

on a formality

It wasn't a formality when you thought you were right. After you were proven
wrong, it was demoted. Very weak.

while
completely ignoring the actual question the thread began with, and my
repeated references to it.

It was you who drifted the thread away from its original topic. Read the
thread.

The only one who was forceful (obsessively so) about its relevance was
you,

Read the thread. You were loudly and insistently wrong.

and so...

And so you cannot debate. It is not an inbred skill, you have to learn it.

absolutely irrelevant. You could have taken the latter position earlier
and saved yourself no small public embarrassment.

The only one who embarassed himself publically [sic] was you.
Of course, you'll probably never admit (or even realize) that.

Respelled and redirected: The only one who embarassed himself publicly was
you. Of course, you'll probably never admit (or even realize) that.

Since you were proven wrong by the trivial application of evidence, it is
incumbent on you to acknowledge your error. Instead, you describe the
entire matter as "trivial", which makes one wonder why you insisted at
length over a period of days that you were right.

 

[Paul Lutus]

Paul Lutus wrote:

/ ...

The only one who embarassed himself publically [sic] was you.
Of course, you'll probably never admit (or even realize) that.

Respelled and redirected: The only one who embarassed himself publicly was
you. Of course, you'll probably never admit (or even realize) that.

Hmm, in my intent to quote you exactly, apart from corrections, I managed to
miss one of your two misspelled words the first time. Let's try again:

The only one who embarassed [sic] himself publically [sic] was you.
Of course, you'll probably never admit (or even realize) that.

Respelled and redirected: The only one who embarrassed himself publicly was
you. Of course, you'll probably never admit (or even realize) that.

Here is how literacy education works:

1. Render your ideas in stunning prose. But first ...
2. Learn how to assemble paragraphs into ideas. But first ...
3. Learn how to assemble sentences into paragraphs. But first ...
4. Leasn how to assemble words into sentences. But first ...
5. Learn how to assemble letters into words.

You must start at the bottom.

 

[Michael Borgwardt]

Hmm, in my intent to quote you exactly, apart from corrections, I managed to
miss one of your two misspelled words the first time. Let's try again:

Spelling flames. Your paltriness apparently knows no bounds.

 

[Paul Lutus]

Spelling flames. Your paltriness apparently knows no bounds.

It was a correction, not a flame. Your attitude toward it fully explains
your poor skills, to the degree that it is a matter of volition as opposed
to genetics.

In Usenet, illiteracy trumps all, as you have proven once again. All this
apart from your unwillingness to stick to a single topic once things begin
going against you.

 

[Michael Borgwardt]

It was you who focused entirely on that, not me, and as the thread proves.

The thread proves exactly the opposite.

I merely replied with evidence.

Eventually. After several requests of me to do so, when you had just
repeated your statements and snipped everything else.

You were intent on proving me wrong,

No, I was intent to explain you what I meant. You were intent to
ignore everything about my statements except the one detail I was
wrong in.

but you don't know how to argue or
produce evidence, so you failed.

Nope, I succeeded. You ignored it time and time again.

You were also entirely wrong,

I was not.

but this is
not fatal to an argument if someone understands debate.

As you do apparently not.

It wasn't a formality when you thought you were right. After you were proven
wrong, it was demoted. Very weak.

Weak of you to still not understand the point.

It was you who drifted the thread away from its original topic.

Let me tell you how I see the development of the thread, maybe that
will allow use to get away from fruitless repetitons of "I'm right
and you're not":

1. The original poster asked for a way to set and query ESSIDs of his
"wireless LAN" card.
<[email protected]>

2. You told him that was impossible in Java, as it was platform
dependent.
<[email protected]>

3. I pointed out that other platform dependent things are also done in Java,
and that there's no reason why there couldn't be a standard API for
wireless LAN
<[email protected]>

4. You said that would be impossible because the functionality and
implementation of "wireless interfaces" diverge too much. You
mentioned Bluetooth.
<[email protected]>

5. I said that Bluetooth was not the issue because the original
poster had talked about "wireless LAN", which most people use to
specifrically mean 802.11. And that he mentioned a specific
feature (ESSIDs) of 802.11, making it pretty clear that he
didn't require a way to manipulate Bluetooth, only 802.11
<[email protected]>

6. In your next posting, you ignored all the evidence I had pointed
out, focused exclusively on the (implied, at that point) statement
"Bluetooth is not Wireless LAN", and made its negation your
battlecry.
<[email protected]>

7. Again, I explained that the term "Wireless LAN" is generally not
considered to include Bluetooth. I cited evidence that this
is a widely-accepted definition. I again pointed out evidence
that it is also what the original poster meant. I *asked* for
evidence to the contrary.
<[email protected]>

8. You ignored all the evidence and explanations, provided none yourself
and tried to ridicule me.
<[email protected]>

9. At this point I became pissed off, and complained (in an admittedly
offensive way) that you had ignored all the evidence and original
topic and instead focussed solely on that one statement that
"Bluetooth is not a wireless LAN".
<[email protected]>

10. Again you reinforced your focus on that statement and claimed that
it was the only thing relevant. In a second posting you *finally*
posted evidence for your oppostion to it, mixed with cloaked insults.
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>

11. I insulted back, but also admitted that you had posted compelling
evidence that Bluetooth should be considered *a* Wireless LAN
technology. I again pointed out that this is not how the term
"wireless LAN" is generally used, and that it is evidently not
what the original poster meant.
<[email protected]>

If you think it was I who "drifted the thread away from its original topic",
please point out where and how that happened. And perhaps you should also
clarify what you think the original topic was. I say that the original
poster asked asked for a way to set and query ESSIDs of his
"wireless LAN" card.

And so you cannot debate.

I can. A lot better than you, it seems. At least if one considers
content important and not just who is right and who is wrong.

It is not an inbred skill, you have to learn it.

Yes, and for you to learn it, the first thing you should try is to
actually read and consider *everything* that other people say, not
just the details that you can conveniently attack.

 

[Michael Borgwardt]

It was a correction, not a flame.

It was meant to be offensive, not relevant or helpful. Same thing.
Especially when posted publically in a message that has not other
purpose.

Your attitude toward it fully explains
your poor skills, to the degree that it is a matter of volition as opposed
to genetics.

Your attitude towards it fully explains your poor reputation.

In Usenet, illiteracy trumps all, as you have proven once again.

As you have proven (and others have noticed before), being an annoying
social retard who calls people "illiteate" for a few typos does *not*
trump all. Yes, I know that's an unveiled insult. You've earned it.

All this apart from your unwillingness to stick to a single topic once
things begin going against you.

While your specialty is single-mindedly and obstinately sticking to a
single statement not even relevant to the topic, like a rabid dog
worrying a piece of rotten meat.

 

[Paul Lutus]

Michael Borgwardt wrote:

/ ...

No, I was intent to explain you what I meant.

Wow. And you thought spelling corrections constituted a diversion, not
anything of substance. Guess again.

 

[Paul Lutus]

It was meant to be offensive, not relevant or helpful.

If you could spell, the correction would have been unnecessary. As has been
said by many, usually to little effect, the surest way to remain illiterate
is to take offense when people try to help you.

 

[Michael Borgwardt]

If you could spell, the correction would have been unnecessary.

I can spell just fine. It's just not worth the time to double-check
everything, since normal people (who are not retarded assholes like you)
understand it anyway in nearly all cases (otherwise they could not
correct it), and realize that the same is true for other readers, and
corrections therefore unnecessary. QED.

As has been
said by many, usually to little effect, the surest way to remain illiterate
is to take offense when people try to help you.

You are not trying to help, you are being an asshole. Only assholes
publically criticize someone's spelling (unless it creates ambiguities)
and call people "illiterate" for a few minor mistakes. QED.

By your standards you yourself are illiterate for correcting my "publically",
which is in fact a valid variant spelling:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=publically&x=0&y=0

Interesting also to see how you're now completely discarding the
pretense that you care for an objective debate rather than proving
your imaginary superiority.

 

[Funny]

Maybe you should stop posting Paul. You seem to be the one with an attitude
and poor skills.


Once again a person can hide behind a keyboard and spout off. The only
shame of it is in person you would probably be less arrogant.