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

"Donald L McDaniel" <orthocross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
csfje39qm5is2nj15uhg19k84oh40m6a39@xxxxxxx on 9/13/07 4:29 PM:

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...

Note the smiley... I was joking for the sake of irony.

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.

Agreed - and that includes if you were to show evidence that showed someone
had broken the law and so stated... that would not be against the
presumption of innocence (though, of course, others would be welcome to
agree or disagree - and need not even share a reason).

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.

Sometimes we all misspeak - I think it is reasonable to ask for
clarifications.

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.

Exactly. If you do say something that is reasonably interpreted to mean
something other than you believe, or even accidentally write something that
does not represent your views correctly, you should be able to offer a
retraction, correction, or clarification and it should be accepted.

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.

All too often Steve tries to speak for others... several examples from the
last few days where he has done this to me.

( 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.

This is really what I ask of Steve... and others. I do not ask people to
always agree with me or even understand my points (I have areas of expertise
and experience where others do not... and vice versa), but we should treat
each other with respect, honor, and honesty.

5) Continue to do as you are attempting to instruct Steve to do, and
you will always understand what I say.

I generally do understand what you write - which is not to say I always
agree or see things from the same perspective.

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 this I agree with.

....
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?

This is not really behind his back. I post the above for you and others to
better understand Steve's comments but just as importantly to help Steve
understand himself.

I am, of course, happy to show where Steve acts as I describe. With that
said, I have allowed Steve to get me to to focus on him and not on topics of
greater interest to me... and that is my mistake (I do not blame Steve for
my actions).


--
I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is to try to please
everyone. -- Bill Cosby

.

Quantcast