John,

>Doug..
>
>>I have no trouble with that whatsoever John.
>
>Good..

Thanks, but no one needs your approval.

>
>>
>Did it ever cross your mind that perhaps Craig simply didn't have the time John? Or must everything be cast by you in your mind in moral tones? You presume knowledge of Craig's motives that he, in his mind, had a less-than-honorable attitude towards someone else. This is your error.
>>
>
>
>Doug, why do YOU read morality into everything. Why do the majority of issues you bring up always boil down to a moral tone?

*ROF'L!!*

Oldest trick in the book John; answering a question with a question. I will presume that since you deliberately chose to not answer my question that I am correct in my presumotions. You have not answered a simple question John - why? What are you afraid of here? Why are you "blowing me off" John? What is your real motive here and why won't you face a simple straightforward question John?

How's it feel yto receive what you have dished out? Gross over-generalizations. Presumptions of motives. Innuendos of half-truths...

John, I'm just giving back to you what you give to others. I hope this will make it to your central nevrous system.

Oh... To directly answer your question. In my thought process morality and general decision-making is and always will be intertwined. In simpler words John, I want to do what is right. I will fail more often than I care to admit and often quite publicly. That's my burden and I'm happy to bear it.

Are you suggesting that this is bad? Are you suggesting that people shouldn't try to do their best? I don't think this is what you would mean at all. Still, one wonders how others can live in such a disconnected fashion and not begin to exhibit neurotic behavior.


>
>Fact - A complex question was asked
>Fact - A one-sentence answer was given.

Answer my question John.. Stop ducking the issues. Quit avoiding the obvious.

Again, just giving back what you have dished out. Get ready John.. When you become a barrister this will be seen as lightweight child's play...

You're headed for the deep end of the pool and perhaps you may not realize it yet but a few of us have been there before you.

John, when you learned how to swim water wasn't discovered.

>
>This leaves the person asking the question hanging in the wind. A better response would be something like
>
>"There is not sufficient time to answer this question in this lecture. Also, it is beyond the scope of the presentation. Post a message on the UT and I will be happy to address it there so all can benefit"
>
>This would have tabled the issue.

Then why didn't you make that suggestion directly to Craig in your first post John? You really do not get it, do you...

>
>Get off your moral kick Doug. You are reading way more into the issue than what exists. I made no conclusions or assertions to Craig's motives.

No, I am not reading more into this than what exists. Let me ask you to do a simple exercise. Get a piece of paper. Fold it vertically in half. On the left side write "For me". On the right side write "Against me". Go back through the last 2-3 weeks of messages and whenver you get a negative message put a mark in the right column, Same for the left for those who support you. Add them up.

Report back when you have an answer.

Then, for extra credit, in the messages 'against' you John, what are folks trying to tell you?

Here's a straight question: Do you really have the cajones to do this?

I will tell you my position AGAIN. I think you're probably a pretty nice guy. You are obviously technically talented. You have a serious problem with your ego. Everything is about you in your posts. Your opinion. Your point of view. Your this and that.

>
>As far as giving shots, take your best one Doug. As far as I am concerned, I have brought up a legit issue here.

Yes, you brought up a legitimate issue but your delivery stinks.

We're just getting warmed up John. You seem to think you're pretty tough at all of this. You aren't.

Should you run from reality into the "I don't care what other people think of me" self-delusion I will happily keep reminding you of your head-in-the-sand view of other people.

>Yes, I remember Winchell. He tore into me once. Then again, I did'nt cry and whine about it either - but that is another story.

Yes, of course John. Once again, this is about you, in't it? You as so noble, so good, so smart, so wise..

Gosh, I'm sorry I haven't recognized this before!! What could have come over me? <g>


>Fabian Pascal, yes, I remember him. Unlike Jeff who was techncially and factually on the ball, Fabian could not debate, argue, or support his points worth a damn.

Yeah... You're right. His posts were always about his opinions anyways. Not really worth reading after the first 2-3. He was always starting arguments and they invarioably degenerated into messages about, to, from, and concerning himself. He really wore thin after a little while. IHe was interesting though.. He'd drop by every now and then, start an argument by posting some baseless side-swipe assertion, soak up all the negative energy for a couple days, finally reach the point where he'd blame the community, stomp off. Only to return a few weeks later.

>
>You tore into Winchell? Somehow I don't remember that.

No surprise. You really aren't perfect, you know...

>At least, I don't see where you could have made an impact, especially if you dealt on moral/emotional terms. Morality, religion, and politics are two things best left at the door Doug.

Spoken like a true "Expert on Everything".

>
>No question that on many levels, Jeff and I are very similar.

Heh.. More than you know. BTW, Jeff and I are good friends though I haven't spoken to him in several years. Perhaps the same result will happen between you and me.

>
>Take your best shot Doug. Whatever shot you do take, be sure to make it good..

*sigh*

John, have you ever tried to pry an octopus off a rock? Essentially it will not come off until it wants to.

All I'm trying to do is help you get off the rock but at some point you have o want to.

>
>Best,
>
>< JVP >

Regards,

DD