"Wilson" wrote in message
...
sometime in the recent past gunner posted this:
and Wilson retorted with :
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,But since we do not know what dictionary you used, as my old
instructor
liked to say, "it don't count for a hill of beans" .


Okay. I'll nibble a bit more, but I am amazed at the quantity of points
you're willing to throw at a small point. For the record, in this
instance, 'my dictionary' was
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=citations. However, if I go to my
hard copy Websters Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, copyright 1988, pg.
243, 'ci-ta-tion 2 a: an act of quoting, b: excerpt, quote.'

My point exactly Mr. Wilson, a citation is a quote, not a reference. You
cite facts, events, etc, in a writing but If you are quoting a paper or a
book, you don't need to be writing , you are plagiarizing,

Good enough for me. Your argument attempts to draw the observers
attention to the minutiae so that you don't have to deal with the facts.
If you are to impress me, then try to at least do a bit of spell checking.
My spell checkers just about crapped it's pants on this post alone.

ahh this was a bit confusing at first, MS OS yes? yea it doesn't like
colloquialism or street slang. I'm not changing except when I am writing for
a professinal audience but if that is all ya got I am good with that, Mr.
Wilson!


The rest of your argument is more than I want to get into. It was your nit
picking that made me rise to your bait. You enjoy to much listening to
yourself, so I leave you to your pleasure.

Suffice it to say, you ain"t got nothing of substance?
Good. I have always found when you put your nose into a fight that wasn't
yours, regardless of intentions, you have a good chance of getting it
smacked.