Print

Print


"Raymond A. Brown" wrote:

> At 4:54 pm -0700 2/11/98, Robert J. Petry wrote:
> >"Raymond A. Brown" wrote:
> ......
> >> But my problem was with a guy who seems to be pretty certain that he is
> >> already successfully pushing two conIALs whose design was completed more
> >> than half a century ago.
> ..........
> >
> >Well, first of all, I am successfully doing that. Just open your eyes abit.
> >Again, another indirect put down.
>
> No - I said, if you will read WITHOUT PREJUDICE, that you DO consider that
> you are successfully doing that, i.e. I'm AGREEING with you.  How is that
> another indirect put down????
>
> Only history will tell whether or not you actually are successful.
>
> In the private emails I've received in the last two or three days I've had
> several sympathizing with my frustration in having any reasoned discussion
> with you.  The opinions expressed were that you do not respond to arguments
> but answer with non_sequiturs.
>
> At 11:04 pm -0500 2/11/98, Jay Bowks wrote:
> >Illo es difficile trovar rationales pro comprehender
> >pro que in messages private tu me accusa e me
> >ordina pro crescer, e in publico tu finge appretiar
> >mi conselios. Hmmm...
>
> Certe - illo es difficile trovar rationales pro comprehender....
>
> ....except in my case both the censure & the "finge appretiar mi conselios"
> have been public.
>
> Several correspondents have told me they regularly trash RJP's mails &
> advised to do likewise.
>
> Very sound advice, methinks.  But I have the politeness to let Bob know
> that henceforth all his mails will not be read by me & therefore this is my
> very last reply.
>
> Ray.

I see the gang has finally decided to gang up on me. Excellent. I love a fair
discussion.
Al l sue,
Bob, x+