Re: Just tell the doctor what you see, Paul...

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:38:13 -0700, "Robert Ladd" <rladd5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:

>I started to write a very long reply to this, detailing where I stand and

>why.  Then, as I was starting to put the fini****ng touches on it, the
vision 
>of George Bailey sitting across from Mr. Potter after he was offered the
job 
>at Potter's bank.  At first he couldn't put his finger on it, but he knew

>that something wasn't right, and then it hit him.

Wow... so, so CYNICAL, Bob.

Perhaps you might benefit from expanding your cinematic horizons...
Could I send you a free "Pollyanna" DVD? (original jewel case)

Hell, unlike Russ, I won't even ask ya to write a review of it on RGP.

Just MY GIFT... to you.

I just honestly feel it could help you... cuz this kinda unwarranted
cynicism is gonna eat ya up inside, bud.

> I look back on two 
>previous examples where I tried to explain what I meant by something and
all 
>I got was misrepresentation and being called  a "weasel" and worse.

But if you're calling it "misrepresentation", that means you're
calling ME something (by inference)... true?

You can call ME stuff but I can't counter by calling YOU stuff?...
That hardly seems fair, Bob.

But let's forget all that for a sec... the im****tant point is, once
you've said a coupla things and I've said a coupla things, haven't I
just said, basically: "Hey folks, read what we both wrote and YOU
decide."

Haven't I said that, Bob?  How can THAT be unfair? 

How can throwing it up to RGP'ers judgment not be a square way about
settling things? After a coupla posts, this is what I've done.


>No thanks KT.  With our recent history I don't think giving you any more
pot 
>shots at me would be wise.

psssst, Bob: You've definitely misinterpreted some things I've said to
you as "pot shots" (others here, I'm sure, have correctly identified
them as nothing more than me (humorously) yanking your chain.

> We're worlds apart and I'll just accept that.

That's fine... it's all good.


>Robert Ladd
>
>"K.T. Constanjuror88poet" <ktconstanjuror88poet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message

>news:4rcf84pp7n46pq2lqvg8hjvlk1jv4br1m4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 15:36:46 -0700, "Robert Ladd" <rladd5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>We agree, now we'll just have to haggle over the percentage, and what 
>>>falls
>>>into which category.  My guess is that we're still a world apart.
>>>
>>>Robert Ladd
>>
>> Ok, Bob, upon reflection, I'll concede that my 90/10% is hyberbolic.
>>
>> Instead of haggling over percentages... how bout this?
>>
>> Would you say (considering the TOTALITY of what Russ has posted on
>> RGP) that the majority falls into the TRUE or UNTRUE category. Let's
>> keep it simple. Totality of Russ postings (on all subjects)...
>> majority of them are: TRUE or UNTRUE.
>>
>> Obviously you know where I stand... 
>