From: Tony Cooper <>
Subject: Re: OT, kinda, video
Full headers:
From: Tony Cooper <>
Subject: Re: OT, kinda, video
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 01:55:38 -0400
Lines: 104
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <271020171732452825%nospam@nospam.invalid> <> <271020171851477392%nospam@nospam.invalid> <> <271020172318287476%nospam@nospam.invalid> <> <> <> <291020170048574037%nospam@nospam.invalid>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: U3rWhytrpM4xM+LNakK/TgsSvyLKw6DaMyAO4WR7TMp+DfqO8Q
Cancel-Lock: sha1:I8Q+NxAnCwi+s8FZeGzm1kghIrc=
User-Agent: ForteAgent/
Print Article
Forward Article
On Sun, 29 Oct 2017 00:48:57 -0400, nospam<nospam@nospam.invalid>

>In article<>, Tony Cooper
><> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> It looks as though a giant wall is about to descend on the ball
>> >>>>>>>> carrier.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> no it doesn't.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> What do you think those guys are doing in the left of the photograph?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> playing football.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> the wall is in the background, unaffected by those guys or anyone else
>> >>>>> for that matter.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Duh!
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The wall that is about to descend is composed of the players on the
>> >>>> left of the image. The game is Rugby.
>> >>>
>> >>> that's not a wall.
>> >> 
>> >> It is a figurative wall much like a gridiron scrimmage line could be
>> >> considered a figurative wall, not a literal brick wall.
>> >> You are being a bit too obtuse in pressing your POV.
>> >
>> >Is obtuse the correct word?
>> Well, he is being obtuse in that he doesn't show any sign of
>> understanding the metaphorical use of "wall".  
>now i do, but not when he initially said 'a giant wall is about to
>not everyone plays rugby and knows what the terminology is.

It's not rugby terminology.  I even gave you a 1929/1930s American
football reference ("The Fordham Wall Still Stands") that you snipped.
It's just a word that can be used in any context to describe a mass of
>> Anyone should be quite familiar with that type of use.  We speak of a
>> wall of water in a flash flood or tidal wave, a wall of obstruction by
>> the opposing political party, a "Chinese wall" where information
>> deliberately isn't shared, long distance runners hitting the wall, and
>> many other types of walls that are not physical constructions.
>he used the word wall without a descriptor ('a wall is about to
>descend'), versus your examples (wall of water, chinese wall).

"The Fordham Wall Still Stands", used by Grantland Rice, has no
descriptor.  When someone comments about a runner saying "He hit the
wall", there's no descriptor.  

>you bash me for not being clear (even when what i write is clear as can
>be) yet you give a free pass when others are not.

Poor baby.  Eric's comment was crystal clear to me, and probably to
all others who read it.

>> You might also say he's being excessively literal in ignoring that the
>> word "wall" can be used metaphorically or allegorically (a symbolic
>> representation).  
>> But, I would think that Eric would know by now that nospam enters
>> threads with the sole intent to argue based on a pathetic need to be
>> noticed and paid attention to.  Any response to nospam gets a response
>> from nospam, so he is always the last to comment on anything.  He'll
>> keep anything going to maintain face time here.
>absolute utter nonsense. 
>you are *delusional* if you think that. 

If you didn't understand it was a metaphorical reference, or didn't
know what was meant, then you should have asked what it meant.  Or
kept out of it.  Instead, you chose to make a silly-ass comment about
a real wall in the background just to give you another chance to
create an argument.

>your post here is nothing more than an opportunity to bash and the
>*only* reason you posted what you did. 

Yeah, you certainly did give me that opportunity.  You've created
another argument for no good reason and made yourself look stupid in
the process.
>your other posts completely twist what i say just to argue, including
>when you know absolutely nothing about the topic, as was the case with
>the dcc subthread, showing just how incredibly stupid you really are.

You commented on something you admitted here you know absolutely
nothing about just to argue.  You looked at an image with "All Blacks"
in the link name, and saw a player - obviously not in American
football kit - grasping a ball and being tackled, and thought it was
football (soccer).  Error piled on error.

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida