GPS Nav in 2008

The Wolf With the Red Roses wrote:
>> Non sequiter. I will freely give respect when and if it is earned -
>> but not before. Similarly I will give disrespect when and if it is
>> earned. Until one or the other I remain neutral.
> Just a guess, but that could be the reason people respond to you as
> they do.
Yes I guess it is just totally unreasonable to hold a position where you
bestow respect when earned and disrespect also when earned. That is sooo
****ing illogical it's not funny. No, really we should all strive to
bestow respect when it is not yet earned... Give me a ****ing break...
--
Andrew DeFaria <http://defaria.com>
Bad command. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaay..

The Wolf With the Red Roses wrote:
>> No it's my opinion. Girls tend to want to be like their mothers, not
>> their fathers as boys tend to want to be like their fathers, not
>> their mothers. You can't seriously say you haven't noticed such a trend!
> While you're opinion it has been disproved in valid peer-reviewed
> scientific studies.
Like... References please...
> Under your theory if a female child's mother is dead, they themselves
> would aspire to be expired.
Yet another non sequitur. I said "girls *tend* to want to be like their
mothers". Where and when did that turn into "girls *must* be like their
mothers..."? Perhaps one of those nameless peer-reviewed scientific
studies... Here's the shortcut - "tend" does not mean "always".
Therefore it does follow that in cases where a female child's mother is
dead one (who has 1/2 a brain) might conclude that said child would
probably not aspire to be expired... Geeze...
>>> Most when refer to Role-Models are talking about values & actions to
>>> be admired & emulated. These are not gender specific things.
>> How touchy and feely...
> Not really, in case you haven't been out & about much lately, today's
> world has become very gender non-specific in a lot of things. I'm
> quite sure your aware of things like single fathers who raise
> non-butch daughters aren't you?
Methinks you still need to hit the books WRT the difference between
"tend" and "always"... Again, here's a clue: tend means like most of the
time. Indeed single fathers raising daughters are the exception to the
rule in the first place. Yes I get out and I happen to know that single
fathers with custody of their kids is indeed rare, not the rule. Tend
deals with what is common, what is in the majority, what happens most of
the time. It is not in the realm of the exceptions, what happens rarely
or in few of the cases. The very term "single father" is, by definition
and by statistics, rare. So it sounds to me that it is you, not me, who
hasn't been out in today's world lately.

Meantime I'll sit back and wait for those scientific studies you alluded
too...
--
Andrew DeFaria <http://defaria.com>
Cannot find REALITY.SYS. Universe halted.

>Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>> MikeSo wrote:
>> Apologizing in advance for the top posting ...
>>
>> Not true Andy, people did respond rudely to you initially.
>
> I agree! People did respond rudely or at least it was them that
> escalated things...
>

My typo. People did NOT respond rudely to you (as you well know). People gave you responses such as (and I will paraphrase here) "save your money, don't buy the GPS" or "get a portable model instead" or "I've not been happy with my GPS and here is why ..."

In each of these cases you berated these people for not giving you what you wanted, which was GPS specs, information or access to the manual (which you did get rather early on in this thread) but instead gave you their opinion.

It is dishonest for you to say otherwise, but do what you want because other readers of this thread and this newsgroup already know the truth.

Got any other research you want someone else to do for you are can you go now?

>> What they did was give you opinion when you were seeking information.
>> You did not take kindly to others opinions on Nav systems and began
>> responding in rude tones which have continually increased to the
>> point where now you are acting like a total dick.
>
> Why thank you but that's not exactly how it happened. I responding
> saying I was not looking for their off the topic opinions rather I
> was looking for information. They then began the escalation...
>

I had spoken to people like that it might not have gotten to where we are today but I went back and looked at this entire thread. You immediately started putting people down for giving opinion and not owners manuals and instructions. The first -bombs dropped came from you. Your responses ensured that things would escalate.


>> Repeatedly you have responded to others that "no one" can control you
>> or what you wish to post
>
> That's right.
>
>> and yet your original issue with a few of the other posters was that
>> you could not control how they chose to respond and your criticism
>> for not answering in the manner you wanted.
>
> Check your facts jack! I never stated nor thought that I could
> control how they responded, I just said that how they responded was
> not what I was looking for.
>

Here is a quote from your post of Dec. 8:

"Again (for the dense among you), vague griping was not requested -
thoughts yes - vague gripping no. IOW surprisingly enough I was looking
for information - not bitching. And even above I did say "I was really
looking for...". Did you not see/get that or are you just being
argumentative? Cause if you want an argument I'd be happy to oblige..."

Looks more like you picking a fight than just letting someone know that you were looking for different information.

From later in that same day:

"Did it ever occur to your little pea brain there sonny that 1) I am
grown up already, 2) I was asking for information - something a grown up
seeks and 3) griping and bitching are the dominion of immature,
non-grown up (actually not matured yet - age is not always a sign of
maturity or intellect) people?
Probably not. I mean after all you don't even have a real name yet!"

<sarcasm>

Yes, thats a sure way to keep things calm and the discusion reasonable around a newsgroup!

</sarcasm>

>> Hmmmm ... seems hypocritical to expect others to do what _you_ want
>> while flaunting in their face that you are a "free spirit" and will
>> post what and when including assaulting others with profanity ...
>> just because you can.
>
> That's because you're striking down your own strawman! Again, I
> didn't attempt to control what they posted, nor did I say that they
> can't post it - I just said it was not what I was looking for.
> Apparently you can't discern the difference between the two...
>
>> I'm sure you'll have some unreasoned response to this as well but
>> myself and others here see what is really going on.
>
> You see only what you want to see apparently.
>
>> We know for whom the bell "trolls", it "trolls" for thee.
>
> I ain't hearing no bells...

I am not surprised. The ringing is deafening to other readers in the newsgroup.

--

Thanks,
Mike

MikeSo wrote:
> >Andrew DeFaria wrote:
> >> MikeSo wrote:
> >> Apologizing in advance for the top posting ...
> >>
> >> Not true Andy, people did respond rudely to you initially.
> >
> > I agree! People did respond rudely or at least it was them that
> > escalated things...
> >
>
> My typo. People did NOT respond rudely to you (as you well know).
Actually, no, I disagree with you on that.
> People gave you responses such as (and I will paraphrase here) "save
> your money, don't buy the GPS" or "get a portable model instead" or
> "I've not been happy with my GPS and here is why ..."
Instead of paraphrasing, which is inaccurate, why not quote, which would
be more accurate? (But I see you managed to **** that up too - see below).
> In each of these cases you berated these people for not giving you
> what you wanted, which was GPS specs, information or access to the
> manual (which you did get rather early on in this thread) but instead
> gave you their opinion.
Heaven forbid, I asked for specs! What so ever made me think that I
should get those?!? Did you miss the part about me thanking the guy for
giving me a pointer to the actual specs? You know, what I asked for in
the first place?
> It is dishonest for you to say otherwise, but do what you want because
> other readers of this thread and this newsgroup already know the truth.
It is not dishonest of me to say otherwise because otherwise is indeed
the truth.
> Got any other research you want someone else to do for you are can you
> go now?
"...are can you go now?". You really should make an effort to proofread
your ****. Yeah I got some research for ya. How about you research your
claims before making them!
> >> What they did was give you opinion when you were seeking information.
> >> You did not take kindly to others opinions on Nav systems and began
> >> responding in rude tones which have continually increased to the
> >> point where now you are acting like a total dick.
> >
> > Why thank you but that's not exactly how it happened. I responding
> > saying I was not looking for their off the topic opinions rather I
> > was looking for information. They then began the escalation...
>
> I had spoken to people like that it might not have gotten to where we
> are today but I went back and looked at this entire thread. You
> immediately started putting people down for giving opinion and not
> owners manuals and instructions.
When the question was "Where's the manuals?" opinions were the wrong answer.
> The first -bombs dropped came from you. Your responses ensured that
> things would escalate.
Again, had they answered the questions there would be no escalation.
Hell I didn't even really mind their opinions either but merely stated I
was looking for more than just opinions. You make claims but provide no
evidence. I will not address such claims.
> >> Repeatedly you have responded to others that "no one" can control you
> >> or what you wish to post
> >
> > That's right.
> >
> >> and yet your original issue with a few of the other posters was that
> >> you could not control how they chose to respond and your criticism
> >> for not answering in the manner you wanted.
> >
> > Check your facts jack! I never stated nor thought that I could
> > control how they responded, I just said that how they responded was
> > not what I was looking for.
> >
>
> Here is a quote from your post of Dec. 8:
>
> "Again (for the dense among you), vague griping was not requested -
> thoughts yes - vague gripping no. IOW surprisingly enough I was looking
> for information - not bitching. And even above I did say "I was really
> looking for...". Did you not see/get that or are you just being
> argumentative? Cause if you want an argument I'd be happy to oblige..."
>
> Looks more like you picking a fight than just letting someone know
> that you were looking for different information.
Ah so he can do research and actually pull out a quote... Talk about
intellectually dishonest however! Hmmm... Did you ever think that
perhaps the word "Again" signifies that there was something before this?
Oh no, let's now quote that. That would be wrong...
> From later in that same day:
>
> "Did it ever occur to your little pea brain there sonny that 1) I am
> grown up already, 2) I was asking for information - something a grown up
> seeks and 3) griping and bitching are the dominion of immature,
> non-grown up (actually not matured yet - age is not always a sign of
> maturity or intellect) people?
> Probably not. I mean after all you don't even have a real name yet!"
>
> <sarcasm>
>
> Yes, thats a sure way to keep things calm and the discusion reasonable
> around a newsgroup!
Again, don't cha think that a statement like "I am grown up already"
might refer to a jab such as "Grow up" uttered by the guy before me? I
don't know about you but most normally thinking people would call the
guy saying "Grow up" as the one picking the fight.

So let's review, you take quotes after the argument has already
escalated and then say that I was picking the fight to start with!?!
Anybody else see what's wrong with that picture?
> </sarcasm>
>
> >> Hmmmm ... seems hypocritical to expect others to do what _you_ want
> >> while flaunting in their face that you are a "free spirit" and will
> >> post what and when including assaulting others with profanity ...
> >> just because you can.
> >
> > That's because you're striking down your own strawman! Again, I
> > didn't attempt to control what they posted, nor did I say that they
> > can't post it - I just said it was not what I was looking for.
> > Apparently you can't discern the difference between the two...
> >
> >> I'm sure you'll have some unreasoned response to this as well but
> >> myself and others here see what is really going on.
> >
> > You see only what you want to see apparently.
> >
> >> We know for whom the bell "trolls", it "trolls" for thee.
> >
> > I ain't hearing no bells...
>
> I am not surprised. The ringing is deafening to other readers in the
> newsgroup.
I see you left this little gem of a quote out. How could you forget
though as you were the one who uttered it:
> Do you molest your daughter often?
Oh yeah, you're sure the calm one. No, you are always so nice to people.
Never put them down. Never do anything like *lie your ****ing ass off*
nor anything like that. You're as intellectually dishonest as the day is
long. You sir are the ugly one as only an ugly person would accuse
another of such a vulgarity, and with not one shred of evidence
whatsoever! Oh but sure ride your high horse as I ride *your *daughter! ;-)

And I'm sure you're so ****ing stupid that you'll state I started that
little argument too. ****ing dumbass!
--
Andrew DeFaria <http://defaria.com>
When you do a good deed, get a receipt - In case heaven is like the IRS.

Andrew DeFaria wrote:
> Oh yeah, you're sure the calm one. No, you are always so nice to
> people. Never put them down. Never do anything like lie your ****ing
> ass off nor anything like that. You're as intellectually dishonest as
> the day is long. You sir are the ugly one as only an ugly person
> would accuse another of such a vulgarity, and with not one shred of
> evidence whatsoever! Oh but sure ride your high horse as I ride your
> daughter! ;-)

Ha-ha-ha, what a fantastic wit you have there, my good man. Jolly good!!

>
> And I'm sure you're so ****ing stupid that you'll state I started
> that little argument too. ****ing dumbass!

Nope, I took a shot at you. Proof is there for all to see. No need for me to lie about it.

Hardly call it an arguement however.

Then again, I probably wouldn't have taken the shot had you treated others differently.

--

Thanks,
Mike

MikeSo wrote:
> Andrew DeFaria wrote:
> > Oh yeah, you're sure the calm one. No, you are always so nice to
> > people. Never put them down. Never do anything like lie your ****ing
> > ass off nor anything like that. You're as intellectually dishonest as
> > the day is long. You sir are the ugly one as only an ugly person
> > would accuse another of such a vulgarity, and with not one shred of
> > evidence whatsoever! Oh but sure ride your high horse as I ride your
> > daughter! ;-)
>
> Ha-ha-ha, what a fantastic wit you have there, my good man. Jolly good!!
>
> >
> > And I'm sure you're so ****ing stupid that you'll state I started
> > that little argument too. ****ing dumbass!
>
> Nope, I took a shot at you. Proof is there for all to see. No need for
> me to lie about it.
>
> Hardly call it an arguement however.
>
> Then again, I probably wouldn't have taken the shot had you treated
> others differently.
Talk about "proof there for all to see"! If we examine this little bit
of proof we would find that 1) you never addressed the charges (i.e.
dismissive) and 2) you actually did blame me for this argument anyway
(i.e. "I wouldn't have taken the shot if you behaved differently'). Yes,
the truth is there for all to see - you did exactly as I would have
guessed - you were dismissive and blamed me for what you did. Two big
signs of a scoundrel for sure.

--
Andrew DeFaria <http://defaria.com>
The gene pool sure could use a little chlorine.