Erik Reuter wrote: >On Sun, Jul 14, 2002 at 09:55:26PM -0400, Jim Sharkey wrote: >>D) This discussion has nothing to do with you specifically. > >But it is certainly highly related, considering that the first >words in your post were "Erik Reuter" and you quoted a paragraph I >wrote.
More to give you credit for giving me the thought than anything else, frankly. I wanted to show the two disparate viewpoints to give people an idea of the two philosophies I was thinking about. >>But not everything is about you, believe it or not. > >I believe it. But not everything is an attack on you, believe it or >not. Maybe, just maybe, I was interested in discussing your idea >and proposing an alternate way of viewing the situation than what >your post presented. Fair enough. But you came across as though you were saying I hadn't allowed for the possibility, rather than simply arguing that you had a third theory. > >>Since you two seem to be at opposite ends of the spectrum, it >>seemed a good place to start. > >I thought so. That's why I replied. Great! I look forward to further thoughts on it. Because despite the even-handedness of "why can't it be more than one thing to more than one person," I want to know what *you* (the collective you, that is) want from the list and what you think it should be. >>If it bores you, ignore it. > >What ever gave you the idea that it bored me? To be honest, I was giving you the business, since you've used that phrase quite a number of times the past few days. I considered putting in a smiley, but I wanted to see your reaction. My apologies for the cheap shot. Jim ------------------------------------------------ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web!
