Richard, don't take it personally, Malmo said pretty much the same things to me recently when I had the audacity to call him out from behind his veil of b.s. I'm guessing you've received a few f-bombs and cute little insults in private messages? And I'm sure I'll receive a few more after this one...
Sorry to further waste the list airwaves with this, but people who make a habit of talking to others that way should be held accountable. The more who know Malmo's true colors, hopefully the less likely he'll be to show them. Dan --- Richard McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 02:46 PM 10/16/2003 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >I'm sure there has been error in my posts - but very rare - and > certainly > >never a diliberate attempt at distortion. > > Are you trying to claim that I've deliberately distorted my posts. I've > also had a few errors in my posts, and I have the courtesy to admit > them. As to deliberate distortion, I have NEVER done that, and you > better > have pretty strong proof before you make such an outrageous accusation. > > On the other hand, I know that I have told you earlier that I do not > work > for UC and that I am a private consultant, yet you PURPOSELY ignore that > information and attack me personally as having a biased viewpoint. It's > pretty clear who's deliberately distorting information. I've caught you > in one case here. How many other times have you done this? > > >With the lack of intellectual honesty in your opinions about your > hobby, I > >don't see how Californias energy policy will ever improve. > > I'm sorry that you believe that anyone who disagrees with you by using > reasoned, logical argument and empirical proof that you seem to largely > be incapable of comprehending is intellectually dishonest. I think you > might > want to look in the mirror before you look very far for that type of > intellectual dishonesty. > > If you understood the wide range of clients that I work with, and the > absolute necessity for me to have an intellectually consistent position > that can withstand litigation scrutiny, you'd realize that I have to be > completely honest intellectually, and that my positions must be derived > from first principles, rather than jingoistic knee-jerk responses. > > At 02:53 PM 10/16/2003 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >Easy, Richard. I'm just pointing out your affinity for embellishment so > > >that you might be more aware of it and spare us of it. I actually like > you. > > One mistake is embellishment? Certainly no one has questioned the other > facts that I've presented in this thread. Broad generalizations without > factual support qualify as embellishments. > > > >I'm not attacking the messenger, I'm attacking the messenger's method. > >Call me selfish for wanting debate to have real boundaries and wanting > you > >to respect them, if you want. > > No, the post clearly attacks me personally as biased. I see absolutely > nothing that discusses my method. I also don't see any thing about > establishing boundaries. I only see an attempt to undermine my personal > credibility by trying to portray me as racist. It's pretty obvious. > > RMc ===== http://AbleDesign.com - Web Design & Custom Programming http://Run-Down.com - 10,000 Running Links, Fantasy T&F ------------------------------------------------------------ @ o Dan Kaplan - [EMAIL PROTECTED] <|\/ <^- ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) _/ \ \/\ (503)370-9969 phone/fax / / __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
