Re: Maccies resort to their typical dishonesty [was Re: You wanted an example of a price drop...]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 22:27:44 -0700, Snit <CSMA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

"Donald McDaniel" <orthocross@xxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
C30E15A1.1CD9%orthocross@xxxxxxxxxxx on 9/12/07 10:16 PM:

To get back to your side issue, though, you asked about Donald's views in
regards to your mistaken comments. I told you I would not speak for him

I didn't ask you to. What I did ask you was:

"OK... then what do you think Donald conveyed?"


Apparently you need Donald to do your thinking for you;)


Steve, once again you need a little course-correction:

You claim that "I didn't ask you to [speak for Donald]...", not
understanding what you were saying, since there is no functional difference
between "tell us the meaning of what he said", and "speak for Donald".

Exactly - I noted that Steve made a mistake when he responded to Edwin:

Edwin:
What's "uninformed" about that?

Carroll:
What's informed about it? He provided nothing in the way
of substance... he didn't inform anyone about anything...

Steve, for reasons he has not explained, asked me what you would think -
though, I admit, it may have been about his mistake in that quote or some
side issue he ran to as he avoided talking about his mistake. Frankly I do
not care which... if Steve cannot stick to a topic so be it!

I alone in the entire Universe can explain the meaning of my own words.

What do you mean by that? :)

Hmmm. I would have thought you would understand...

But for your sake, I will try to explain:

1) My words belong only to me. They are my property, and protected by
the US Constitution.
2) I try to speak and write American Business English. Anyone who
understands this dialect should be able to understand what I say
without asking me. If they can't understand it, they need to go back
to School.
3) I myself am the final arbiter over the meaning of what I say or
don't say. I have given no one the right to speak for me. While you
may understand what I am saying or writing, nevertheless, when it
comes to a difference in interpretation of what I say or write, my
interpretation will always prevail.

4) It is extremely impolite to do what Steve is doing toward me in
this newsgroup. If he wants my opinion, let him come to me for it. I
will certainly not withhold it, if he asks politely.

( Are you reading this, Steve?. How do YOU appreciate being spoken of
in the third person while you are standing right there? Not very
comfortable, is it, friend?)

You are a gentleman, snit, and I appreciate you for that. While you
and I disagree (sometimes to extremes), we still treat each other like
adults. This is sadly lacking in many people's lives.

5) Continue to do as you are attempting to instruct Steve to do, and
you will always understand what I say.
But the words below explain what I mean very clearly. You know the
depth of respect I have for our Creator, so you should be able to put
two and two together easily.


Even the Eternal Father will not. His Word tells us, "no one knows the
thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him."

i.e., (to put it in less archaic terms,) "Only the man himself truly
knows the thoughts he is thinking."


And I have given no man the authority to speak for me. If you want to hear
me, hear me directly, in my own words. I seldom speak figuratively, and use
common everyday English, which any schoolboy should be able to understand,
so I really don't need anyone being a prophet for me. I have no prophets.

My own words will stand or fall according to the authority in them.

Do you REALLY think I give an ounce of bat-*** what you or anyone else
thinks about anything? Not on your life, Bud. I can see right through you
and those like you. You are as transparent as glass to anyone who has
experience with God.

One need not have "experience with God" to see how Steve refused to talk
about the error he made in his reply to Edwin, quoted above.

But you, like the Scribes and Pharisees of Christ's time on the Earth,
continue to argue about the maximum size of the load on a camel's back it
will take to keep a rich man from entering into the Kingdom of Heaven, while
He offered you advice which would save your damned and mortal soul from the
Fire, if you would receive it.

"Apparently, you need Donald to do your thinking for YOU", Steve.

You never fail to give me a wide target, my friend. I just can't help
myself. You really should give it up. You're just no match for us.

Steve repeatedly backs himself into a corner with his comments... when he
does and even he sees it he generally reacts with one of his common "tells"
- he makes references to drugs or substance abuse
- he makes personal attacks against people based on his *claims* about
their income, health or other irrelevancies. He occasionally even
will do so based on sexuality or, I believe, color of skin, though I would
have to hunt a bit for an example of the latter.
- he starts snipping all but the first few words of the post he responds to
and pretends that the post said something he did not. This has been
referred to as his "vandalism" of posts.

Steve also often changes topics, but I am not sure if that is based on his
knowledge of his errors or his lack of understanding. Perhaps it is a combo
of the two?

Friend, you know I am a fair man, so you will understand what I write:

snit, it is just as bad for you and I to find fault with Steve behind
his back as it is for him to speak to you aboutf me in the third
person. ' Nuff said?

--

Donald McDaniel
.