Group poll: What do people think Phil Innes hs been smoking?

Chess One wrote:
> "allan connochie" <conncohies@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:gaszj.33572$d62.27073@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> "Chess One" <OneChess@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:1qKdnQdjJYSZWFDanZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>> "Robert Peffers" <peffers50@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>> news:LaKdnWs0Z9Gga1TanZ2dnUVZ8q2dnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>>>>>> In other words, you confound your Mote with your Mottel [Old
>>>>>>> French].
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just the faintest clue as to what you are talking about?
>>>>>
>>>>> I mentioend to Renia a while back that this poster does this. His
>>>>> posts go all uncomprehensible. I don't know whether he's taking
>>>>> the piss and trying to make people feel dim because they can't
>>>>> follow him, or is he genuinely trying to communicate. I suspect
>>>>> it's the former but who knows :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Allan
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, Allan, I think, perhaps, that you know.
>>>
>>> Well, you 2 wags, I wonder if you can get over jerking each other
>>> off, and try a topic? That would be a test wouldn't it? Or is that
>>> too "uncomprehensible"?
>>
>> Aye well there is a difference between getting one word wrong, which
>> didn't really make any difference to the total comprehension of the
>> sentence, and your postings which baffle many people!
>
> Many people, you suggest, though without any evidence evidently,
> struggle with uncomprehension of some thing you cannot repeat?
>
> We are, you may note, some distance from what is uncomprehended, and
> if indeed what I said is merely novel to the 'many people' you
> [psychically?] reference, or if it is merely to the dislike of you
> and your web-wench de-jour, what is that to any truth of the matter?
>
>> Basically if I am uncomprehending something (that is not
>> comperhending from the COD) then it is not too huge a blunder to say
>> uncomprehensible rather than incomprehensible. Hardly makes one
>> illiterate and kind of shows that it is you who is 'jerking off'
>> over one word. Let's face it there are people here having problems
>> working out whole sentences and paragraphs of your scribbling.
>
> But you cannot state what 'they' cannot understand, and by all
> evidence, 'these people' do not complain themselves! Can it be that
> you personallyhave a problem in comprehension? Or is it that you make
> the cheap complaint on this basis yet the truth is that you do not
> like what is said? Your responses are often of one word extent, which
> cannot recomend you overmuch. You see the problem I have with your
> postings?
> If there is a content issue, by all means let us bash it out if it
> comes to that, but you avoid actual content so quickly that I rather
> feel that you are all at sea with your critique, and seek the sup****t
> of the [invisible] many to make any response at all.
>
> This is the cheapest response of a newbie to usenet - often coupled
> with mental illness, drug abuse and such flung-****.
>
>> I was wondering are you doing it on purpose - or do you really think
>> everyone else is too thick to follow your great literary wanderings?
>
> I think you are too thick, since you insist on the question. Not only
> too thick, but someone who hides in a crowd which is not present!
>
> Pray, return to any issue you contest and let us have it out, or
> desist in your other behaviors which you here make public! Its really
> your choice.
>> Footnote.............I haven't read over every single word, run a
>> spellcheck, or searched for grammatical errors. So if there is a
>> mistake there have your bit pleasure and clean up after yourself!
>
> Relax a bit! It is merely novel to be critised for one's English by
> someone who is no better than oneself - is this a conversation after
> all about the grandness of usenet anecdote?
>
> What were we discussing that was so offensive to you that you wished
> to observe [however well] that did not jell with yer beans?
>
> I have to ask this since a previous correspondent once took me to
> task over Anglo Saxon - here are his own words:-
>
>    Old English is dead
>
> he said, quoting some 'authority' but [ROFL]
>
> utilising 4 words of 'old english' to say so.
>
> This is some new form of wit, no? Or is this person merely an idiot?
>
> ---
>
> Now, I don't really mind whatever you say, since I feel adequate to
> make an explanation of what I write, and suspect you have another
> orientation to writing to which you are unable to 'campel' with such
> as me, but that is just for showing off, and methinks if you went a
> bit deeper you would not be so reactive a person, but be able to
> present your own points as alternate ideas.
>
> Do not sink, Sir, into net-lethargy in correspondence. There is
> hardly any standard here, and that not much.
>
> It serves you well for but a moment's shout, but sets you apart from
> the very thing, the instinct, from which you shout, so that your
> opinion is not even received by others - instead they read of your
> resentments only - and weigh them accordingly.
>
> Cordially, Phil Innes

Snap poll: What do people think Phil has been smoking?
-- 
John Briggs