XP slowdown

Bent

This dialogue about hijacking has got out of hand. The reason for starting a
new thread is to avoid confusion as, although users frequently think they
have the same problem, it is often not the case. Starting a new thread makes
for clarity helping those to understand the problem and the answers to
questions posed. If you just said sorry for the misunderstand the other
normally helpful individuals would stop pursuing the point.

Otherwise you have not responding to my questions about your problem.


--


Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


"Bent Attorney Esq." <parkstreetbooboo.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8f6f9a52-01d2-4a41-a37a-1bf2543815dd@n30g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 9, 6:23 am, "Olórin" <inca....DeleteThis@erkljrjre890aeraekj4na.com>
wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > >> (BAE, in the future, please start your *own* thread. Thank you.)
>
> > >OK. I didn't realize I was breaching etiquette. Subject line
> > >related to my problem so...
>
> > What do you think "hijacking someone else's thread" means?
>
> You of course are using the word 'hijacking' incorrectly. To hijack
> something means that there was intent to steal something; i.e. an
> aircraft comes to mind. You can't innocently hijack something without
> without there being the intention of theft.
> <snip>
> ==========
>
> Nope. It *can* mean that but doesn't have to. For instance:
>
> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hijack, meaning (c): "To seize control of
> ... by use of force, especially in order to reach an alternate
> destination."
>

Theft.

> http://www.alphadictionary.com/goodword/word/hijack, meaning (2): "To
> illegally take control of a transport vessel or vehicle and divert it to a
> different destination." The site also notes: "The meaning of today's word
> has been changing recently... it also applies to a wide assortment of
> metaphors, "The conversation was pleasantly random until Stu deBaker and
> Ford Parker came in and hijacked it; after that, the only topic discussed
> was cars.""
>

You have not proven that I intended to hijack anything. Intent must
be involved. If you go by your new and improved version of the word,
then you must understand that the idiots(that includes you btw, just
in case you're too dense to understand) that accused me of hijacking
this thread(which btw I never did; look at the subject of the thread;
what does it say?)did in fact hijack this thread; the subject was 'XP
Slowdown'. I responded positively to this thread. There was no
hijacking. Then the anal crowd came in, listened to themselves roar
and scurried away like the mice they are.
So we have here a thread that has morphed from concerning itself with
'XP Slowdown' to a thread that has been hijacked by the imbeciles who
live among us; hijacked into a thread that is concerned with hijacking
a thread. Please note that I wear special sunglasses; much in the
same way that Roddy Piper wore in the movie 'They Live.' It lets me
see who the green lizard people are very clearly. You obviously
intended to disrupt this thread and have of course succeeded by
hijackery. You are clearly visible and out in the open. My glasses
have seen to that. Next: You're going to bring up grammar and
spehlink. I purposely made 5 basic errors; let's see if you can find
them.
I'm waiting.

> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hijack, meaning (b): "to
> commandeer (a flying airplane) especially by coercing the pilot at
> gunpoint"
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hijack, meaning (3): "to seize...
> by force or threat of force"
>
> http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/hijack?view=uk:"1 illegally seize
> control of (an aircraft, ship, etc.) while it is in transit. 2 take over
> (something) and use it for a different purpose.
>
> Someone can be wrong; fine. But when they aren't, and someone (you, here)
> tries to correct them but are themselves wrong (and furthermore isn't
> familiar with well-understood "local jargon"), I have to wade in!

On Mar 9, 2:46 pm, "Gerry" <ge....TakeThisOut@nospam.com> wrote:
> Bent
>
> How to win friends and influence people!

I need your friendship like I need a bag on my hip.

>
> --
>
> Gerry
>  ~~~~
> FCA
> Stourport, England
> Enquire, plan and execute
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> "Bent Attorney Esq." <parkstreetboo....TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:7587ffa2-fdd6-4d9c-8768-a3113725041c@r36g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 9, 11:47 am, "Gerry" <ge....TakeThisOut@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > Bent
>
> > This dialogue about hijacking has got out of hand. The reason for starting
> > a
> > new thread is to avoid confusion as, although users frequently think they
> > have the same problem, it is often not the case. Starting a new thread
> > makes
> > for clarity helping those to understand the problem and the answers to
> > questions posed. If you just said sorry for the misunderstand the other
> > normally helpful individuals would stop pursuing the point.
>
> I said I made an error a few posts ago.  That's all you're getting out
> of me.  Now you are getting on the hijacking bandwagon as well.  Guess
> what Gerry:  You've got nothing to teach me.  I've learned much on my
> own in the past couple of days.  Beats posting to the deadbeat
> (including you)pseudo helpers here.  In case you didn't get the gist
> of this post it is this:  flip you and the horse you rode in on.
>
> > Otherwise you have not responding to my questions about your problem.
>
> > --
>
> > Hope this helps.
>
> > Gerry
> > ~~~~
> > FCA
> > Stourport, England
> > Enquire, plan and execute
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> > "Bent Attorney Esq." <parkstreetboo....TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote in
> > messagenews:8f6f9a52-01d2-4a41-a37a-1bf2543815dd@n30g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> > On Mar 9, 6:23 am, "Olórin" <inca....TakeThisOut@erkljrjre890aeraekj4na.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > <snip>
>
> > > > >> (BAE, in the future, please start your *own* thread. Thank you.)
>
> > > > >OK. I didn't realize I was breaching etiquette. Subject line
> > > > >related to my problem so...
>
> > > > What do you think "hijacking someone else's thread" means?
>
> > > You of course are using the word 'hijacking' incorrectly. To hijack
> > > something means that there was intent to steal something; i.e. an
> > > aircraft comes to mind. You can't innocently hijack something without
> > > without there being the intention of theft.
> > > <snip>
> > > ==========
>
> > > Nope. It *can* mean that but doesn't have to. For instance:
>
> > >http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hijack, meaning (c): "To seize control
> > >of
> > > ... by use of force, especially in order to reach an alternate
> > > destination."
>
> > Theft.
>
> > >http://www.alphadictionary.com/goodword/word/hijack, meaning (2): "To
> > > illegally take control of a transport vessel or vehicle and divert it to
> > > a
> > > different destination." The site also notes: "The meaning of today's
> > > word
> > > has been changing recently... it also applies to a wide assortment of
> > > metaphors, "The conversation was pleasantly random until Stu deBaker and
> > > Ford Parker came in and hijacked it; after that, the only topic
> > > discussed
> > > was cars.""
>
> > You have not proven that I intended to hijack anything. Intent must
> > be involved. If you go by your new and improved version of the word,
> > then you must understand that the idiots(that includes you btw, just
> > in case you're too dense to understand) that accused me of hijacking
> > this thread(which btw I never did; look at the subject of the thread;
> > what does it say?)did in fact hijack this thread; the subject was 'XP
> > Slowdown'. I responded positively to this thread. There was no
> > hijacking. Then the anal crowd came in, listened to themselves roar
> > and scurried away like the mice they are.
> > So we have here a thread that has morphed from concerning itself with
> > 'XP Slowdown' to a thread that has been hijacked by the imbeciles who
> > live among us; hijacked into a thread that is concerned with hijacking
> > a thread. Please note that I wear special sunglasses; much in the
> > same way that Roddy Piper wore in the movie 'They Live.' It lets me
> > see who the green lizard people are very clearly. You obviously
> > intended to disrupt this thread and have of course succeeded by
> > hijackery. You are clearly visible and out in the open. My glasses
> > have seen to that. Next: You're going to bring up grammar and
> > spehlink. I purposely made 5 basic errors; let's see if you can find
> > them.
> > I'm waiting.
>
> > >http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hijack, meaning (b): "to
> > > commandeer (a flying airplane) especially by coercing the pilot at
> > > gunpoint"
>
> > >http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hijack, meaning (3): "to
> > >seize...
> > > by force or threat of force"
>
> > >http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/hijack?view=uk:"1 illegally seize
> > > control of (an aircraft, ship, etc.) while it is in transit. 2 take over
> > > (something) and use it for a different purpose.
>
> > > Someone can be wrong; fine. But when they aren't, and someone (you,
> > > here)
> > > tries to correct them but are themselves wrong (and furthermore isn't
> > > familiar with well-understood "local jargon"), I have to wade in!