Reply below: **
--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "Marek Reavis" > <reavismarek@> wrote: > > > > Reply below (to the comments addressed to me): > > > > ** > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Marek Reavis" > > > <reavismarek@> wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > Judy, there's no way that Rick doesn't hold "fairness, > > > > honesty, and sincerity" as dearly as you. That is my > > > > view of him, at least. It perplexes me that you have > > > > such conviction that he is so shallow and hypocritical > > > > and you believe that the record abundantly supports that > > > > view. In my review it doesn't. > > > > > > I read over my post, and I was not able to find > > > anything in it that suggested I believe "the record > > > abundantly supports" that view. Could you point out > > > to me where you found such a suggestion? > > May I conclude that your lack of response here > means you were not, in fact, able to find any > suggestion of the "conviction" you attributed to > me in the post you were responding to? > > > > > > Nor, in fact, is it my view. > > > > > > I have seen several *instances* of unfairness from > > > Rick; and in this post I was referring exclusively > > > to the most recent such. > > > > > > In my book, that doesn't make him "so shallow and > > > hypocritical" as a human bean, only that he has some > > > blind spots and is capable of making some bad mistakes, > > > including this one. > > > > > > I would note that it's not terribly surprising > > > that the people Rick supports, or at least refrains > > > from sanctioning, would find him to be commendably > > > fair. > > > > > > Do you read the traffic here on a regular basis, > > > by the way? > > > > > > And just out of curiosity, after reading my post, > > > do you see how a reasonable person might have > > > found Rick's post offensive? Or are you convinced > > > it's just rampant paranoia on my part? > > > > **snip to end** > > > > Yes, I read the traffic here on a regular basis, and more > > so since the institution of the new posting restrictions > > which, in my opinion, have happily eliminated the compulsive > > posting habits of contributors like yourself. > > > > And, no, I don't find your views regarding the "offensive" > > nature of Rick's comments as reasonable. Quite the contrary. > > Right. Well, that tells me all I need to know > about your ability to evaluate a person's fairness, > honesty, and sincerity. > > > However, I am in > > no position to diagnose or speculate as to why you persist > > in that attitude. > > Obviously not, since you're unable to see why > I have that "attitude" in the first place. (Of > course, I never asked you to engage in such a > diagnosis or speculation.) > > I'm sure you won't take me up on it, but it would > be really interesting to see how you would justify > your "unreasonable" characterization with regard to > each of the points I made about Rick's post. We > could even do it privately if you preferred. > > But it's so much easier just to make the blanket > characterization, isn't it? Pain in the neck to > have to actually defend the specifics. Some > might even see it as "compulsive." > **end** There is no desire on my part to engage in endless argument and confrontation with you or anyone else. That appears to be your desire. You asked me whether or not I considered your response to Rick's posts as reasonable and I replied, "No." However, your question doesn't seem sincere since apparently only a "Yes" answer was acceptable to you. You also asked me if your attitude re Rick's postings was, in my opinion, "rampant paranoia" on your part. I cannot diagnose any mental illness or symptoms thereof you may have nor can I speculate as to its etiology. Your words and behavior speak clearly enough without need for me to characterize them.
