"Michael Bryant" wrote in message
...

SNIP
What a putz!


And thank you for proving my point, Michael! Please show me where I threw
the first pitch. When you run out of ideas, there's always name-calling,
huh? You just can't resist it.

Like JD, I do appreciate civil discourse without name-calling. However,
once again, you have illustrated how you lower the bar, then whine when
someone swats back (or does the same).

Michael, I don't think I've ever seen you get into much more than a
two-response thread without slamming the other poster's intelligence,
reading comprehension, etc., and though many do respond in a like manner,
I've yet to see some posters reply in-kind. You probably don't realize
this, but it's almost down to a formula. If I had time to waste, I could
build a "check sheet" for an MWB response.

That's awfully tiresome drivel from somebody that fancies himself as a
professional (with credentials) in debating.

My disagreement with JD's opinion on Betz's post is not about tone, it's
about factual content, which is close to nil. Give me facts, THEN present a
case for opinion based on the facts. Betz posts opinion, and the facts are
completely missing (and for good reason -- he's wrong). I don't debate
fiction.

-- Stinger