John,

>snip<
>The 'problems', it seems to me, stem from when others perceive that you are attempting to somehow excoriate ot twist their figurative arms for not holding your standards. Let me illustrate. As a Christian I wish and pray that everyone would give their lives to Christ. I also understand that many will not. Do I treat those who do not take my position as "lessor". NO WAY! I try and treat those of a different persuasion absolutely equally to anyone else - no better, no worse. I have the obligation of living the standard FIRST, and if my standard is somehow 'higher' fine. I am NOT somehow a better person because Ihave standards higer than other folks do. No way are they any 'lessor' either. We just have different standards. Now, if I were to start insinuating something based on my personal faith regarding you then you'd have every right to put me in your crosshairs. I'd have asked for it. Now.. If you'd ever like to discuss your spiritual life and
>>health.... <g>
>>
>
>The analogy notwithstanding, I see your point. I can tell you that it is not my goal to do any arm-twisting. I let the facts do that. Rather, my goal is to have a rational and objective discussion..

Doesn't matter what your intent or goal is. What matters is how others perceive your intent or goal. Herein lies the trouble I'd think. By the kinds of responses you are receiving I'd say in general you are NOT acheiveing your intent.

Remember, the strong need to be strong enough to be gentle.....

>>
>John, I think you are very bright but you do not need to constantly prove it, ok? I accept you as you are and I welcome your contributions.
>>
>
>I don't think I need to constantly prove anything. That is a conclusion on your part. That is not my intent. And thank you for accepting me as I am..

Again, based on the replies (ie. objective information) I'd have to disagree. You seem to attract a lot of heat. Youhave said you like it that way so I'll presume that you help precipitate it.

The question is whether this is about the technical issues or about John Petersen.

>>
>However, isn't there a time in a court proceeding where a counsel can become "argumentative." That is, argue for argument's sake? Using arguments to coerce a response? I think at times you become argumentative and that you might take greater pleasure in your arguments than on shedding light to the individual you are conversing with.
>>
>
>I think the preception of me being argumentitve occurs when I start saying things people do not want to hear. I lay the facts out. They in turn, get twisted to mean that I am "bashing" the community, the product, or some individual inparticular.

I say that you should not hold back at all but that you should perhaps rething how you deliver the information. This has always been my issue with you.

>
>>IMO we should all lend a helping or "light shedding" hand to those around us - not show them what great logicians we are. Nothing wrong with being "right." We should all IMO aspire to being perfect but I dare say that none of us will ever quite get there in this life. <g>
>>
>
>I shed the light with honesty..

And, to some, a gratuitous slug in the rhetorical nose.

>>Additionally, I should make sure you understand that if I have at all misunderstood you I also apologize.
>>
>
>Apolgy accepted..

Did you ask for an apology? <g> My offer only stands if you feel injured. If you feel injured you need to let me know how and why.

If I am a bank and I offer loans that is not an offer of free money. <g>

Best,

DD