OK. Though once again you've missed the point. It's not that your right, it's that you lack tact & manners.
This is the part of my last post I'd like to reiterate: "You're correspondence technique, has left a bitter taste in many peoples mouths. Because of it, anything you say, no matter how technically accurate or valid, will simply be ignored & disregarded." Screaming "WRONG, WRONG, WRONG" at someone, even if they are, isn't a good way to make your point, and it will make you no friends. Cheers, Dave At 12:41 PM 19/12/2006, J. C. O'Connell wrote: >You should go back and read any of the >posts where I started out with WRONG WRONG WRONG. >They are not directed at anyones opinions, >they are directed at factual errors and misconceptions >that someone had posted to SUPPORT their opinions. >And all of those things were WRONG WRONG WRONG >as I went on to explain why after the WRONG WRONG >WRONG opening statements and I still stand by them. Yes it might ruffle >some >feathers but when someone claims that my opinion >is mistaken or invalid and them proceeds to explain why with >a very flawed snd factually incorrect argument >why their opinion is more valid than mine, its >quite upsetting and I just comment on the WRONG WRONG >WRONG non - F A C T S given in their supporting >argument. There is a difference in saying someone >elses opinion is wrong, than saying factual matters >used in their argument to support their opinion >are WRONG WRONG WRONG so to speak. I hope that clears >that up. >jco > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >David Savage >Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 9:16 PM >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >Subject: RE: Please everyone set up an email filter > > >John, > >I think you'll find that most of the posts you send , or those that >simply >make mention of you (like this one), will find it's way into more and >more >trash cans. > >You're correspondence technique, has left a bitter taste in many peoples > >mouths. Because of it, anything you say, no matter how technically >accurate >or valid, will simply be ignored & disregarded. > >And this has nothing to do with being abusive or name calling. When >someone >states an opinion, or a preference, and you reply by saying "WRONG, >WRONG, >WRONG", it's you who comes across as unpleasant. Opinions & personal >preferences in particular, can't be wrong, they just are. > >It's a shame really, you seem like a smart guy. It's just you appear to >be >unable to play nicely with others. > >Cheers & Happy Holidays, > >Dave > >At 10:44 AM 19/12/2006, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > >Secondly, if someone wants to comment on my latest posts, > >I suggest they be able to read them and then read them first. Its not > >very smart to say you have had it with me, will not read any of my > >posts, and then proceed to continue > >posting new stuff related to me and my posts speculating on what I >"may" > >or "may not" > >have just posted recently isnt it? I think someone should either read > >my new posts or just shut up about them and me completely. To continue > >posting > >about them, while not actually reading them, makes no sense whatsoever. > >This is one of the reasons I havent ever filtered anyone in my life. > >If you filter them out, you really have no business commenting later > >because you are totally in the dark with regards to what has been > >discussed. > >jco -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
