On Nov 6, 1:21*pm, Hawke wrote:
On 11/6/2011 4:56 AM, wrote:



On Nov 5, 10:07 pm, *wrote:

What can I say? You can't grasp what a figure of speech is. A metaphor..
You say something that doesn't mean exactly what is written. I've told
you how many times now what I meant when I said there was no damage.
It's like saying when an ugly woman gets hit in the face with a baseball
there was no harm done. I guess you're just never going to get it.

Hawke

That is why I posted the original post and your first reply. *On
reading your reply it is obvious *that you are not using a figure of
speech or a metaphor. *Your reply is too short to be interpreted as
anything other than saying that the original post was false. *But I
can see that you will never admit you were wrong.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Dan

How can I be wrong when what I said was there was no damage and by that
I meant it was so minimal as to not be worth mentioning or by calling it
damage. Most of it was simple wear and tear and what wasn't was truly
insignificant. So my characterizing it as "no damage" was and is still
is correct. But you can keep taking my description literally if you
choose to. I told you what I meant but you want it to be what you meant.
There's nothing I can do about that. It's a free country, right? Take it
any way you want to and don't worry about what the writer tells you what
he meant. It means what ever you want in your mind anyway.

Hawke

But that is not what you said. You said the claim that there wasl
$15,000 in damages was false. So there was no discussion of amount of
damage. Just the claim the the original post was false.

So you can blather on and on about meaning trivial damage when you
said no damage. But you did not say no damage. You said the original
statement was false. So yes I do take your description literally.
And I am sure that you meant what you said at the time. Now you want
to pretend you did not say the statement was false. Saying a
statement is false is pretty black and white.

So yes it is a free country, but saying someone made a false statement
is not really open to interpretation. So try to tell me how you
really meant the statement was not false.


Dan

On 11/6/2011 1:26 PM, wrote:
On Nov 6, 1:21 pm, wrote:
On 11/6/2011 4:56 AM, wrote:



On Nov 5, 10:07 pm, wrote:

What can I say? You can't grasp what a figure of speech is. A metaphor.
You say something that doesn't mean exactly what is written. I've told
you how many times now what I meant when I said there was no damage.
It's like saying when an ugly woman gets hit in the face with a baseball
there was no harm done. I guess you're just never going to get it.

Hawke

That is why I posted the original post and your first reply. On
reading your reply it is obvious that you are not using a figure of
speech or a metaphor. Your reply is too short to be interpreted as
anything other than saying that the original post was false. But I
can see that you will never admit you were wrong.

Dan

How can I be wrong when what I said was there was no damage and by that
I meant it was so minimal as to not be worth mentioning or by calling it
damage. Most of it was simple wear and tear and what wasn't was truly
insignificant. So my characterizing it as "no damage" was and is still
is correct. But you can keep taking my description literally if you
choose to. I told you what I meant but you want it to be what you meant.
There's nothing I can do about that. It's a free country, right? Take it
any way you want to and don't worry about what the writer tells you what
he meant. It means what ever you want in your mind anyway.

Hawke

But that is not what you said. You said the claim that there wasl
$15,000 in damages was false. So there was no discussion of amount of
damage. Just the claim the the original post was false.

So you can blather on and on about meaning trivial damage when you
said no damage. But you did not say no damage. You said the original
statement was false. So yes I do take your description literally.
And I am sure that you meant what you said at the time. Now you want
to pretend you did not say the statement was false. Saying a
statement is false is pretty black and white.

So yes it is a free country, but saying someone made a false statement
is not really open to interpretation. So try to tell me how you
really meant the statement was not false.


Dan


Maybe you can explain the difference between trivial and no damage. I
can't. You are trying to split hairs here and are arguing about what
this word means and what that word means and was it used in this or that
context. Was it an exaggeration? Was it an understatement? Was it meant
to be taken seriously or was it a joke? All can be argued and more if
you want. At this point I'm not sure what you even want. You want me to
say my first post saying there was no damage was false? Or do you want
me to say there was 15 thousand in damage? I don't know.

I know I was saying all along that this was a trumped up accusation, it
was not really as much as was alleged, it was partisan in nature, and it
never amounted to much of anything. So it was simply trivial. I've said
that all along. I said all along that there was no damage and I
explained that was only a half serious statement meaning the damage
amounted to nothing. I can't make it any plainer and I can't really get
what you are so determined that I admit. You know where I stand on this
issue. I've made it clear. So why exactly is what I said in my first
post so all fired important?

Hawke