Jesse Jackson is a Clown and Needs to Stop Already

[sirkickyass]

2. You couldn't figure all that out in 4 minutes. Are you stupid?

Aint, you'll note that link #1 is the EXACT same link that I originally gave you nearly two hours ago as "the start of the string" when you kept insisting you couldn't find it. That is exactly the area of the thread that I found in four minutes, it's been disproving your repeated insistence that I haven't found it that's taken hours. This has not been a case of me fumbling around, it's been a case of you repeatedly insisting that the string doesn't exist until I literally had to give you 16 links to prove the case. Answer honestly: Did you ever actually click on the links I provided at 11:07 and count?

I am doing my very best to have the utmost patience with you in this matter, but I have little doubt that if the shoe was on the other foot here you'd be quoting every time I said that the string didn't exist and asking if I had the stones to retract my previous statements. I don't feel the need to try and emasculate you that way because the posts speak for themselves and doing so serves no purpose.

Can we now consider this matter closed?

 

[Hopper]

Aint, you'll note that link #1 is the EXACT same link that I originally gave you nearly two hours ago as "the start of the string"... Did you ever actually click on the links I provided at 11:07 and count?

As you just indicated that is NOT the start of the string--Marcus's post is. Yes I did click on it and count. So did you. It didn't fit the pattern for either of us, then, or now, did it?

 

[sirkickyass]

As you just indicated that is NOT the start of the string--Marcus's post is. Yes I did click on it and count. So did you. It didn't fit the pattern for either of us, then, or now, did it?

You have got to be ****ing kidding me.

So you're seriously claiming that when you wrote:

I've already told you: There is NO SUCH STRING in that thread that I can find. Perhaps I miscalculated, or overlooked something, that's a possibility. But, until you know there is such a "string" why do you continue to insist that it is "clear" that I could "easily find it?"

and

I got this message at 5:43 A. M. on 7-8, and since it speaks in the current tense I am guessing that the last post counted in the 23 post sequence in question was one I made at 8:13 P.M. on 7-7. If I count back 23 posts from there, I come to a post that Marcus made at 8:17 P.M on 7-6. In that sequence I count 15 posts made by me, one of which was deliberately left blank for legibility purposes, so really 14. All of this occurs over a 24-hour period.

and

Truth is, I still can't find any 23-post sequence which contains 16 by me.

you actually meant "the string of 16 out of 23 does exist and Marcus' post is the first in the string that I have personally already identified on my first attempt as detailed in my post at 12:31 PM." You're honestly claming you haven't shifted positions? Seriously? ****ing seriously?

Un-****ing-believable.

Seriously, just admit that you miscounted originally after successfully identifying the right swath of posts and have been pissing and moaning all day over the stupidest thing imaginable.

 

[Hopper]

Kicky, I told YOU, you didn't tell ME, what I presumed the "string" to be. You told me my string was wrong. You told me that I should have "known" it was the (WRONG) string in 4 minutes time. That's why we've spent hours on this petty crap.

I said I thought it was a particular string (which you now accept, after denying of hours). I said I only counted 15, but I didn't say that, because I only counted 15, I didn't know what was being referred to (now, but not when I got the warning). I merely noted that it took me "the better part of the hour" to conclude that must be the string in question--which you ridiculed on the grounds that it should have been obvious in 4 minutes--10 at most.

If it's 16, fine, that wasn't my point--I said I only counted 15, but didn't say that, because of that, I didn't think that wasn't the string that Catratcho must have meant. One of those "16" is an intentionally empty "post," so there is some ambiguity as to whether Catratcho even attempted to count that.

If it's 16 (as I have counted), fine. If it's 15, (as I have also counted) that's fine too. I NEVER said that was the difference. My point was that it was not "easy" to ascertain what Catratcho had in mind. Even though you contradicted that, you have in fact just demonstrated that it is NOT "easy." Thank you for your help with that.

 

[sirkickyass]

Amazing. Absolutely amazing.

Can we now consider this matter closed?

 

[Hopper]

You can consider it closed any time, help yourself. There are many questions I have posed which you have absolutely ducked, many erroneous statements I have pointed out which you refuse to address, etc. but it's your choice. You're the one who, after refusing to even address my observation that your characterization of a "positive" as being a "negative" was improper, jumped right back in (while still ducking the last outstanding question) because you thought (erroneously) that you had good grounds to ridicule me. You might think you see a good chance to ridicule me again, at any time, and decide you want to jump "right back in," so I won't hold you to "ending" it if you don't want to, ya know?

In the meantime, maybe you'll feel better if you go kick your cat, eh?

 

[sirkickyass]

In that case, if you've said all you have to say, the matter is closed. Everyone who cares can read the thread and draw their own conclusions.

Aint has offically (as announced by me, in my capacity as a moderator) been the recipient of the most full due process in the history of jazzfanz.

 

[moevillini]

wow, you guys pulled an all-nighter on this! that might also be a historical event for jazzfanz!

Good Morning! Now I hope you can get yourselves some sleep. :-D