>
It is plain tactics of you.>
>Did you mean to say tactless? This statement as it stands makes no sense. What was so tactless about
Not tactless. Don't you understand the word I used? See here then and learn:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tactics>it? I was merely expressing an opinion about accepting a paycheck that one has not earned. Or do you think that this is OK? Why is it OK? Because you think Naomi isn't being paid enough at her job? If this is the case, where do you draw the line? Is it permissible to steal from a store because they over-charge for what they sell and therefore, you are entitled to do so?
All these questions are brought in to distract from the real issues and to bring down Naomi.
>
And your hidden motive is clear to me.>
>I was not aware that I had a hidden motive. Please do enlighten me as to what it is.
To bring down Naomi.
>
The 'I am a taxpayer' argument is really ridiculous here.>
>Really? Why? I work hard for my money and pay a lot of taxes. Naomi is paid with tax dollars. So what is ridiculous about it?
You have a hidden motive. The taxpayer argument is pure rationalization here. You make it up.
Groet,
Peter de Valença
Constructive frustration is the breeding ground of genius.
If there’s no willingness to moderate for the sake of good debate, then I have no willingness to debate at all.
Let's develop superb standards that will end the holy wars.
"There are three types of people: Alphas and Betas", said the beta decisively.
If you find this message rude or offensive or stupid, please take a step away from the keyboard and try to think calmly about an eventual a possible alternative explanation of my message.
