>
I did not flinch at your requirements. You flinched at mine. Thats a demonstration of unreasonability.
>

How did I "flinch" at your requirements??? About the only thing I saw was your inability to meet the requirements I set forth. You did open there door - no?????

Old saying - when attempting to prove a point - just as you did - don't ask open ended questions - that you don't know what the answer will be.

As for reasonableness, you can do what ever you want. Just bear in mind that what you will have to do could not be considered as showing Fox as being more flexible.


>
I sincerely hope that you have no real attachment to this discussion and are merely trying to outwit your opponent on whatever soggy grounds that you can as a practice excersize in debate.
>

What soggy grounds Mike? You opened the door - and I seized the opportunity. Lets be clear. Your motive in this thread - with my name in it - was done for one purpose - and that purpose was not altruistic/academic. If you try to humiliate me or are just interested in having fun at my expense - then you better have your ducks in a row. Personally, I took your proposition with a good deal of offense. And with that in mind, you got the response you deserved.

>
If so, I'll offer you this contrstuctive criticism: you need some work.
>

This coming from you is like Michael Jackson telling people how to be better parents....

Bottom line Mike - your sophomoric bully like attempts are not going to work on me. Your motive here was to take a personal shot at me - which you succeeded in doing. I spent way more time on this thread than I should have. If nothing else - I did want to illustrate how absurd your "challenge" was.

In the meantime, while I believe that people can learn something from anybody - in this case, I'll take my cues from somebody else...

< JVP >