Greetings Bill,
A complete response would be extremely long winded and it isn't clear that it would have benefit to either of us. So, if you'll allow me to address one [non-provoking]point, one non-judgemental admission and then ask a question to assess whether any further effort is worth it for either of us.
A point addressed:
Where is your proof, the posts, that talk about the "visiting hours" for truedog and jla?
As reflected in your post, that was not something that I claimed or agreed with. I don't think the proof is therefore incumbent on me. If your meaning, though unstated, was that I was inequitable in my distribution of criticism I can provide a post where I criticized Barry for a "reading problem" and redirected him to re-read the original post.
Admission: Yes, some of my posts have been caustic.
Question: What is the objective? Do you expect that I'll say, "Bill...you've got me....I was all wrong and all of you are completely right thanks for bringing it to me attention." I would hope that you might agree that is as likely as your review of my response would result in "Jim, thanks so very much for your explanation, I understand what your motivation was and it was completely justified and appropriate."
I've had quite pleasant, at least I consider them to be, dialogues with DCF, Les, Neocon, Michele, etc. That is what I am interested in and where I wish to put my energies; that would be my objective in a response, but I doubt that a full response would lead towards that objective. It's more likely that would result in a he said...he said....but he said....caustic caustic caustic. I'm not interested in that road to travel. So now I put the ball in your court. What would you like to do?
Best Regards,
Jim
P.S. Referring to the above....well I could say that all of you are completely right...but I would mean to the right as opposed to right as in correct, the later being the intended meaning above...[Humor Bill. Humor. Maybe poor, but humor] |
