On Mar 15, 2014, at 1:13 AM, GS Chandy <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I'd suggest you examine your 'intentions' in writing that ridiculous paragraph above. It certainly does impute, to Nathan who was seeking 'a route to learning' that I would "solicit funds" from him. It is, however, clever in its 'lawyerly phrasing?.
"Yes, do review the past postings here and you will find this this empty to-do list theory has been unanimously rejected."
This is absolutely true. No one here has bought your claim that this idea is worth anything.
"And finally, be aware that he has solicited funds in the past and has stated his intent to do so in the future. If such an occasion arises, before you part with any of your money, demand a full accounting, with verifiable references, of his past failures with regard to his business dealings and this empty to-do list product. I doubt you will have any luck in this regard as we have not had any luck in this regard."
This is absolutely true as well and has nothing to do with a trial version of OPMS. Why would I bother with a trial fee, if even there was one, when the real issue is the losses that you have incurred, that your family have probably incurred, and that others have incurred in getting this idea, that apparently no one wants, to market? Did you see me produce any thing related to some fee you charged for trial uses? No! You saw me produce evidence that your previous attempt at this was unsuccessful and the backers lost money. That was the point of my warning, just that. And seriously, in a normal conversation, if you were really interested in what my point was, you would have simply asked. And I would have explained.
> I comment mainly to correct this further falsehood from RH > to the effect that I have "the notion that people need ps&g to understand what they are saying". That has NEVER > been a claim I've made! (Yes, I HAVE suggested that > people would be able to communicate with each other > more effectively if they were to apply 'prose+structural > graphics' (p+sg, NOT "ps&g" which is evidently a > further invention of RH's).
This is what I wrote?
"And now you, and this absurd notion that people need ps&g to understand what they are saying. They understand just fine. It is you that don?t understand. And naturally, because of you don?t understand, you don?t realize this.?
How is that different from what you just said? Just because I wrote ?ps&g? rather than ?p+sg??
This is what I meant about having a technical grasp of the language but not a functional grasp. You don?t get the gist of what people are saying to you, and picking at punctuation is a sign of that. You have as many trivial mistakes in what you post here, but people, including me, don?t point them out because that isn?t the gist and it?s just a forum. Part of it is that you don?t want to listen to what people are saying to you and part of it is that you don?t understand what people are saying to you. The former can also cause the latter. Reading more English literature and poetry will help with the latter, but the attitude issue is up to you.
As far as a challenge, try to be more forthcoming and honest. You have to admit that you led us on with quite the yarn about multiple flats and successes with OPMS, while here you are flat broke, which we knew anyways considering that you live on your son?s farm and lack a decent internet connection.
I only addressed your issue with the above statements and phrases because you insisted, over and over that I do so. I have done so. So on this topic, we are now done.