> [Ron]
> > Goddamn, try to get people together and you piss
> > everyone off.
> > Forget it, laugh away you elitist jerk.
[SA previously]
> What's wrong with laughing? Are you ok? I
> asked
> you serious questions about your endeavor. How was
> my
> asking you questions making you think I was
> "piss(ed)"
> off? Do you fly off the handle like this often?
> Nevermind... maybe you shouldn't even think of what
> lies underneath that question it might be ugly.
[Ron]
> Sorry for getting worked up, SA.
> It is a peev of mine
> When I get the feeling someone
> Is deliberately messing with me.
I wasn't deliberately messing with you. I just
don't understand how absolute changes the meaning of
zero, nothing, and dynamic quality. If it doesn't
change their meaning, then it's not necessary. That's
why I said you could replace absolute, in this
context, with eggs, and zero, nothing, and dynamic
quality would stay the same. If you think it helps
you, then use absolute. I am dug into my position.
[Ron]
> I am who I am. I express no alter ego here
> I do not toy with others as some sort of
> entertainment
> I am genuine in my desire to discuss this subject.
That's what I was doing.
[Ron]
> And yes SA, in everyday life when somebody messes
> with me I tell them
> what I think, I am generally mild mannered, quiet
> and unassuming.
> What lies beneath is vile, ugly and violent....
> I make no secret about the fact I'm working on it.
> But you can't honestly tell me you weren't being
> belittling and sarcastic.
When?
[Ron]
> I may be too sensitive but I did take that comment
> about talking just
> to say something personally. I don't know why,
> probably because it came
> from someone I like. It just hit a nerve. I'll get
> over it.
I said it SEEMS you are starting to stir
controversy, as Ham admitted he was. I then went on
to say that you might be having honest inquires. I
don't see how I was saying you absolutely are stirring
controversy. See, this is another reason why
absolutes don't work.
[Ron]
> It's obvious people just do not want to come
> together over this,
> No biggie. On to other topics...
They can't come together. Ham's thesis is HAM's
thesis, and the moq is the MOQ. Why the need to make
one philosophy out of the apparent two?
Ham has gone back and forth on topics to stir
controversy for some time now. He admitted it. Ham
will say things that are so basic to the moq, but say
the moq doesn't account for it. He's bored or
something.
gray clouds,
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.
http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
