On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 14:55:27 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Neil, I assume what he was trying to say is that someone who is always
> confronting everyone about everything
Assuming that "we" buy that perspective.
> should
Why "should"? What makes this a "should"? Conventional wisdom? Equity?
Leverage?
> tell us why he is better than
> any and every one of us.
Assuming that "we" buy that perspective (TM).
> Not to be confrontational, but there have been a
> couple of instances where I know I am right, and Mr. Rat has come out
with a
> story I had never heard of (case in point: the Dolby patent on ATRAC).
So there's been some debate, and disagreement on a mailing list. No doubt
some discovery and further discussion. Are mailing lists, and other forums
here simply for people to say "I agree."?
Why should this get personal? And why should credibility, leverage or other
aspects be relevant?
> I mean, disagreeing every once in a while is *good*, but someone who is
> *always* disagreeing about *everything* becomes bothersome after a short
> while.
You don't have to discuss with him, if you don't want to - AFAIK nobody puts
a gun to your's or anybody else's head.
Neil
_______________________________________________________
Send a cool gift with your E-Card
http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
