To: jamok99 who wrote (17429 ) 11/2/2000 9:06:55 PM From: hmaly Respond to of 275872 Jamok99 ..Re..Hehe, sometimes things just drop out of the sky into your lap - check this out, as of today: <http://www.semibiznews.com/story/OEG20001102S0002>, part of which says<<< Well, I did ask for a link. Sometimes one should be careful of what one wishes for. I concede that Jerry can be publically arrogant, abrasive and dismissive to excess. By the way, how did you do that. That story must have come over the line as I was printing my other reply. Re...How you get that I'm advocating "telling the analyst what he wants to hear" from that is beyond me - unless you're either purposively misunderstanding, or have access to the same drugs that seemed to have influenced Jerry this morning I get that from your advocating that Jerry should be like Mike; and answer the analysts in the same way as Mike is in a way sucking up. And the results would be the same as Al Gore had in the second debate when he changed his aggressive style to a demure, I am a pleasant agreeable type of guy. Which went over like a lead balloon. Jerry trying to imitate Mikes style would look just as fake. Mike has his style and Jerry has his. Both can be effective as long as it isn't arrogant and insulting which Jerry's speech was today. I didn't see that in his other public interviews and CC in the past 15 months. Lastly, I wonder if on this one topic we ought to call it quits at this point. I think both our positions are well established, and we'll just have to disagree on this one. I don't want this interpreted as my backing away from my statements, or being unwilling to support them with what I think are valid arguments - my guess is that the thread is probably bored by the overkill we seem to be on the verge of at this point. Amen to that.