Richard Clark wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 17:50:31 GMT, "Tom Donaly"
wrote:


Notice how he used the Mensa Society post to destroy the discourse?


Hi Tom,

I notice past membership is one of those unprovable positive facts.


there are,
alas, people who are soft-minded enough not only to take him seriously,
but to agree with him as well.


So rare so that Cecil has to offer they support him in secret email.
Even this is about hit counts when your thumb is on the scale. ;-)


I think Roy had the right idea when
he plonked him. The rest of us should probably follow Roy's example.


What's the fun in that? Pick one point and drill down; ignore the
side topics and drill down; discard the tailored citations and drill
down. Everyone of these drillings leads to a dry hole.
win-lose (classic American competition)

And yes, Mike, busting on Cecil is one pursuit here, we will leave it
to you to judge if it is indiscriminant and across the board, or fits
to threads dominated 9:1 by your Rodney King of the antennas.

Well, sometimes dummies like me get caught up in actually thinking that
it is serious discussion. I should know better!

I would suggest that a lot of the antagonists do a little better
though. All the air goes out of an argument when they just bust on
insignificant details.

I had a fellow like that who worked for me once. He wouldn't pay much
attention to the conversation at hand. But he wanted to show he was
involved. So every once in a while he would latch on to a couple words I
was saying, and argue past me on the irrelevantly picked up point.

I guess that is okay in newsgroups. It is the sort of thing that gets
you gone in the workplace.. 8^)


I make the mistake of using these groups as a learning tool, when
perhaps they are really here as mental professional wrestling?

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -



Gimme another baton! I broke mine!
(classic American entertainment)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC