<< robert, I don't need to 'review' your posts to confirm my opinion of you. Not only are you one dimensional... >>
There you go again! But, it was too late to add this comment to my earlier note of tonyt 02/28 gems.
<< why do you list my comment that ... out of context? >>
Hey! Don't get huffy with me. I was just pointing out the demeanor of your posts. I agree it takes two to tango, but you seem to have the market, today, on hostile posts.
<< If, as you state, you are afraid to post your email address here because you've "had too many encounters with unstable people on the Internet. >>
Your insistance about my email address makes me pretty happy right now that you are unable to use it! ( : > } )======
<< It is a valid obsevation that if you've had many encounters with unstable people on the Internet, that maybe you are the one that is unstable, not the people you meet on the Internet. >>
There you go again! Do you hope to win friends with this type of comment? And..... there is a difference between "too many" and "many".
<< I could care less if you post you email address,... >>
I can see that.
<< many on this thread view that as an indication that your posts are unreliable >>
Ok! Ok! Next time that you want to send me a nasty email, address it to kenstarr@SPO.gov! I'll let you know when I receive it.
Buts..... You finally made a good point. People should consider my posts unreliable. I'm here more to learn, especially from Henry and some of the other knowledgeable posters. I contribute as much as I can to this thread. But, I hope that no-one makes an investment, based on what I, or you, say, without doing their own research.
Regards, Bob
|
