Quite common behavior, actually. If you can't mount an attack
against someone's arguments, attack the person instead.
Unfortunatly, even the personal attacks contain considerable wrong
information and cannot be successuflly defended.
If you are referring to me,
Actually, I was not. You post was not sufficiently interesting, and I treat such as "below my radar". But since you asked directly....
I said I might get an E-1 to torque
your jaws,
There was no "might" involved. You said "I'm gonna get an E-1 just to torque the jaws of Mr. Wisniewski and Mr. Karlson."
Now, as far as I can tell, that is a statement that you are going to do something purely for the purpose of annoying someone else. In short, a personal attack.
and I asked if you had been beaten w/an Olympus as a
child.
No. Although you phrased it as a question, you knew, to an extremely high degree of certainty, that neither myself or Mr. Karlson were " beaten with an Olympus camera as children".
What there is wrong information and how is it indefensible?
Well, since you later stated that "Actually, I probably won't get an E-1...", your yourself have proven your first statement wrong, and have successfully breeched its defences. Your rhetorical question, by its own nature, is self negating.
I can get an E-1 (when they are available) for any reason ("good"
or "bad," it needs no defense) that suits me,
That is true. However, as you said, "Actually, I probably won't get an E-1...", therefore your statement was made for no other purpose than to annoy two people. "just to torque the jaws of...."
a question is
not, in itself, wrong information, it is an effort to seek the
right information from those who would presumedly know.
Do you expect anyone to believe that you were making an honest and sinceer attempt to find out if Mr. Karlson and myself were "beaten with an Olympus camera as children"?
As I said above, there are worse things than hyperbole,
Quite true. There is thinly veiled sarcasm. There is really bad humor.
but that
doesn't make hyperbole good. Your calling my request for
information "wrong information" is not hyperbole, but just plain,
well, wrong.
Again, no one would construe your rhetorical question as a "request for information".
Those issues aside, I was subtly (I'm pointing this out to you as
you seem to have difficulty grasping the subtlety)
I assure you, I have no difficulty with the subtle.
addressing your
seemingly religious zeal in denouncing an unreleased camera on
scant preliminary evidence.
As I have pointed out, I have made numerous positive statements about this camera.
It very well might be the worst camera ever made.
Of course, nobody here but Phil has actually had his or her hands
on one, and that was not, apparently, a production camera (Phil
calls it an "initial production" camera, distinguishing his preview
"as a prelude to the full reivew using a production camera").
And, as several people (myself included) "initial production" has an established definition, a saleable (sellable) product.
Take it from me: that new unreleased Mel Gibson movie SUCKS.
Nobody should pay money to see it. You'll hate it, all of you.
Excellent example. You provide no explanation or reasoning, just condemnation. I do provide the technical explanations to back up my statements.
You might want to see someone about those voices in your head.
--
Ciao!
Joe
http://www.swissarmyfork.com 
