🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <512ahv$4tq@ionews.ionet.net>, yank@ionet.net (EllenSmith) wrote:

:jroberts@ionet.net (John Roberts) wrote:
:
:>>>In article <5128td$4tq@ionews.ionet.net>, yank@ionet.net says...
:
:>>>>>By the way, has anyone ever mentioned to you that you appear to display 
:>>>>>something of a tendency toward emotional outbursts when confronted with 
:>>>>>situations you either don't understand or refuse to accept?
:
:>>>>Nope. 
:
:>>>I'm surprised.
:
:>>>>Has anyone ever mentioned to you that you're condescending and
:>>>>you have a propensity for analyzing people that you are clueless
:>>>>about?
:
:>>>If you think *I'm* condescending, you probably need to get out more.  Also, 
:>>>please reread the original and note that I didn't analyze anyone - only the 
:>>>appearance presented.  I'm certainly clueless about you personally, as I've 
:>>>never met you that I'm aware of, but after reading your posts for the
last many 
:>>>months I'm certainly able to draw a conclusion of the image you present in 
:>>>these newsgroups.
:
:I rest my case.

I guess that one would have to rest ones case if one is incapable of
making it. You will at some point in your life have to realize that they
way you present yourself is not neccesarily a very effective way of
communicating what may be valid points. Or you may not and that will be a
unfortunate for both you and society. If you are truly interested in
having a positive impact on the attitudes that are being expressed I would
reccomend that you rethink your methods. If you want to continue
expressing yourself, in the way that you have, it will only strengthen the
position that you oppose.

-- 
Geordie Korper     geordie@chapman.com

*********************************************************************
* The text above should in no way be construed to represent the     *
* opinions  of my employer, even if specifically stated to do so.   *
*********************************************************************