|
|
Posted by William Davis on 06/30/06 03:16
In article <Xns97F06820A1D56Astrolabe@127.0.0.1>,
"Gene E. Bloch" <hamburger@NOT_SPAM.invalid> wrote:
> William Davis <davisbill@mac.com> wrote in
> news:davisbill-CD6BE9.22431427062006@news.west.cox.net:
>
> > In article <Xns97EFB1D7565A8Astrolabe@127.0.0.1>,
> > "Gene E. Bloch" <hamburger@NOT_SPAM.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> William Davis <davisbill@mac.com> wrote in
> >> news:davisbill-909C97.03061527062006@news.west.cox.net:
> >>
> >> > You likely came here seeking respect. Your behavior, however
> >> > has earned a short trip to my killfile.
> >> >
> >> > *Plonk*
> >> >
> >> > (if I ever see any of your posts via quoting here, I'll step up
> >> > and make sure everyone understands that you have NONE of the
> >> > expertise you claim.
> >>
> >> Be aware that the above remark, quoted from your post, could
> >> convey an impression of the sort of person you might be.
> >
> >
> > Well, I hope the sort of person that is would be someone who uses
> > the same standards and criteria for judging people in newsgroups
> > as a sensible person might use for judging people in the real
> > world.
>
> I know from experience that I can be subtle, even very subtle.
> However, I don't believe that my remark above was subtle; I
> certainly did not intend it to be.
>
> Your reply shows that you completely missed my point. Maybe you did
> it intentionally, or maybe you just didn't get it.
>
> <SNIP more of the same from Davis>
Dear Gene,
Huh? I thought I was taking your post on face value. Did something get
mis-communicated?
I posted my contention that "doc" didn't have a CLUE about what he was
talking about because time after time when challenged, he's resorted to
dissembling rather than posting anything useful.
It's one thing to argue an opinion if a wide body of evidence supports
that opinion. But it's NUTS to argue any opinion if there is
overwhelming evidence, posted by knowledgeable users over a sustained
period of time, which runs diametrically opposed to ones argument.
That's just pigheaded stupidity.
That kind of stuff coming from someone who hides their identity, well,
- they're not worth dealing with. That's why I killfiled the sucker.
Life's too short.
It looked to my eye as if you were siding with him and taking a swipe at
me with the "sort of person you might be" comment.
Which is fine. Since you appear to post under your own identity, I'll
happily give you the benefit of the doubt and respect your right to post
whatever you think.
But I do wonder what "type of person" you think I am? And why it sounds
like you're taking me to task for being whatever that is?
If you object to the fact that I'm tired of suffering the occasional
fool who pops up here and blows smoke - I'm guilty as charged. I've
dealt with this same juvenile crap in r.v.p. for years. Newsgroup
egotists who lurk in the shadows, carpet bomb discussions with opinions
that boil down essentially to "I expect you to bow to MY superior
expertise since my ego tells me that MY singular experience is the only
relevant data anyone should need.
I find that attitude annoying.
Is your position that someone should be ENCOURAGED to post misleading,
erroneous or inflated information here without challenge? Would you be
happier if r.v.p. were even MORE full of the kind of half-baked "single
bad experience paraded out as ultimate truth" storytelling that some
participants here cling to - particularly in the face of OVERWHELMING
evidence to the contrary?
Not me.
If I "missed your point" please enlighten me.
I'll be happy to discuss this or any other topic on the merits. But your
post has me confused.
Jet lag perhaps?
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|