|
[walt.l-@gmail.com] Posts Matt can't seem to answer
|
Errancy Archive
|
Jul 22, 2007 16:52 PDT
|
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [errancy] Posts Matt can't seem to answer
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 14:04:29 -0500
From: "Walt Lechman" <walt.l-@gmail.com>
Reply-To: erra-@iierrancy.com
| | | | | | MB
These posts by you with this heading are grossly unfair [not that I
|
|
think
| | | | this would bother you]. I have been bombarded with posts from several
individuals and am doing my best to formulate worthwhile responses to
every
single one that I consider merits attention. If you cannot understand
that
situation then I'm afraid I have no better response for you than 'tough
luck'.
|
Walt:
Well, Matt, I can't seem to comprehend how it is you've yet to respond
|
to
| | them, being that they were sent yesterday, yet you've already answered
posts
that were sent after them?
|
MB
I have a few criterion that determines the order of my replies:
1. From the easiest to the most difficult.
2. Priority of certain individuals over others.
3. Defending my presence on the list and attacks against it.
4. The feel of the post.
The proper course of action given your puzzlement would have been to seek
clarification rather than to make presumptions and personal attacks.
However, I guess that is too much to expect from you.
|
Walt:
Well, why didn't you just say that you would respond to my posts when you
get a chance rather than complaining about me resending them, especially
after you asked me to point out any points I feel you missed?
| | By the way, in an earlier message to me you told me
| |
MB:
4. I have snipped the remainder of your reply because it consists of
nothing
relevant to the discussion. If you think there was a relevant point to
|
the
| | ED not already answered then present it and if I agree it is relevant I
will
reply to it.
I find it odd you asked me to do this and when I do what you ask, you
whine
and say I'm being unfair to you. But I'm sure that was your purpose,
wasn't
it, Matt? You wanted me to mail the responses I believe you've ignored
|
so
| | you could complain about me being unfair, and in turn, you would just
|
say
| | "tuff luck."
So am I to take it that you don't find my current posts of comments I
believe you've ignored worth responding to (because you don't have any
worthwhile answers, of course), or should I expect that you will respond
to
them when you get the opportunity?
|
MB
1. Your response above is really laughable. You really are so egotistical
that you think I give you any more thought than the immediate remarks in
your posts. You think I'd be sitting plotting to myself, 'Oh. if I
withhold
replies to WL, he will eventually mail in responses about things I haven't
replied to and then I will get the opportunity to call him unfair!'. Get
over yourself. I give you no more thought to you in my day beyond anytime
that I see your posts.
|
Walt:
I was being sarcastic, Matt. I guess I should put an "lol" and :-) after
such comments like you do.
2. You can take it that I will respond to your comments in due course.
Walt:
Can't wait.
---
You've Got Questions. We've Got A Web Family (tm)
http://theskepticalreview.com http://iierrancy.com http://errantyears.com
To manage your list subscription: http://iierrancy.com/support.html
|
|
 |
|
