Eric F. Richards wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:


Hell, even Eric Richards, with whom I
share no personal cordiality,

Laf.

That's YOUR choice, Peter, not mine. And, FWIW, it inspired some
interesting email from former participants in this group.


No doubt. What doesn't.


will address a post as though he's talking
TO me, but not AT me. David doesn't do that. He speaks AT his opponent.
Overwhelming with statistics, where a conversational sentence will do.

Actually, I disagree. He overwhemlms with statistical buzzwords
rather than statistics. It's easy to talk about normal distributions
if you have read about statistics, but what if you don't know where a
normal distribution simply doesn't apply?


Both good points.



Jumping into conversations with material that brings nothing to the
topic at hand, but definitely puts his expertise and policy positions on
display.

Just an ego trip. "Let me show you how much I know." Only it doesn't
work.

Generally a post I would agree with. It doesn't take a radio insider
to see it, though.


And that's my point...a real conversation doesn't.