Leo wrote:
Thanks, Mike.

There are two ways to argue a point - argue the subject, or attack the
person that you are argiung with (the latter is called "ad hominem" -
as old as time itself.

Ahh, such as when I'm called Hockey Puck, Drug abusing, Mentally
(deranged I believe) and the other insults I've long ago forgotten?



So, what's the Defense? None required. Why argue with the guy?

I do not. As my first attempt dissolved into his claims that I was
trying to squelch his free speech (ahhh, sounds a little like another
chap here we've been chatting with lately) So he can spout his vitriol
without my input or response.


Sure, he needs the confrontation to feed his ego, but that's not going
to happen at my expense. He can say anything he wants, but he cannot
get to me unless I let him. In this way, I remain in control.

Yup


Feel sorry for our friend instead - but for the grace of God, that
could be you, or me, or someone we care about someday in the future!


I do, I do.

- Mike KB3EIA -