Fw: Britannica

[Leo van de Pas]

Dear Ed,

When someone asks a question, you presume they want an answer. And if they
really want an answer, they help by explaining the background of their
question. Just to throw out a red herring is _stupid_, as it often does not
help obtaining an answer.

I still believe there is no such thing as a stupid question----when asked
genuinely. But then certain people just are not genuine. Asking questions to
which a person knows the answer already, is not only _stupid_ it wastes
everybody's time, yaawn why can't idiots play elsewhere?

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas,
Canberra, Australia



----- Original Message -----
From: "E. S. Caypatch" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 1:53 AM
Subject: Re: Britannica

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:25:21 +1100, Ken Ozanne
[email protected]> wrote:

Nat,
All those you are missing are available on Internet Archive
http://www.archive.org/index.php search for Encyclopaedia Britannica (you
may have to choose texts first).

There are also volumes 30, 31 and a range of yearbooks going up into
the
50s.

These are obviously the volumes that DSH was thinking of when he
wrote:

How many more volumes are there?

And certain uncharitable people thought it was a stupid question.

Ed

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
[email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message

[James Hogg]

On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 06:29:50 +1100, "Leo van de Pas"
<[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Ed,

When someone asks a question, you presume they want an answer. And if they
really want an answer, they help by explaining the background of their
question. Just to throw out a red herring is _stupid_, as it often does not
help obtaining an answer.

I still believe there is no such thing as a stupid question----when asked
genuinely. But then certain people just are not genuine. Asking questions to
which a person knows the answer already, is not only _stupid_ it wastes
everybody's time, yaawn why can't idiots play elsewhere?

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas,
Canberra, Australia

Leo,

My name isn't really Ed. I was just having fun by calling myself
E. S. Caypatch and giving Hines an Escape Hatch to see if he
would use it, rather than confess to another case of abysmal
reading comprehension.

With his total inability to detect irony, he was naturally tempted and
took the craven way out. What's more, he has started attacking YOU to
deflect attention away from his own stupidity. And he's cross-posting
wildly, having totally lost control. Can he be drinking this early in
the day?

For example, he replies to a post written by his chief obsession
(alongside pictures of interracial sex), Paul Gans, in an existing
thread about the Dark Ages, renames it "Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th
edition", and then addresses the following ad hominem answer to you,
but without citing any of your post, in newsgroups like
alt.history.british and soc.history.medieval where you have never
posted:

"Pogue Leo NOW confuses questions to which a person knows the answers
to LEADING questions."

In other words, Hines the Fraud is manipulating and forging messages
which must be totally incomprehensible to people reading those other
groups. But he doesn't care because he's a plonker and a wanker.

James Hogg