Gary H wrote:

David Maynard wrote:

Gary H wrote:

David Maynard wrote:

SNIP

This is obviously going nowhere. You have your opinion, I have
mine. Hmmm, strange huh? Just like two nations. :-)

As with them, discussions are sometimes useless.



It is true that discussions usually go no where when one, or both,
simply throw 'opinions' around. That's why I provide the logic and
reasoning, so it isn't 'just an opinion'.

That, of course, doesn't work either if one clings to 'opinions'
regardless of logic or reasoning.

If I didn't know better I'd have been tempted to imagine your post was some
sort of joke, but I suppose not.

Sir, you supply *nothing* to these discussions except the same old tired
rhetoric, time after time, post after post.

As opposed to your diverse and multivariate contributions of greed, greed,
and greed plus, of course the highly innovative and intellectually
simulating variation GREED, greed, and greed, or greed, GREED, and greed,
as the universal explanations of just about everything.

It would seem that your idea of supplying 'something' is only if it
conforms to your arguments of greed, greed, or GREED, one or the other.

You "seem" as though you
don't live in the real world at all. All you ever offer the other side
of a discussion are your points of view

All I can say is you have a strange notion of what constitutes a "point of
view" and, as but one example, I point to my explanation that price
generally goes down as a result of "profit taking" and of the mechanism
why, that supply increases as the profit takers attempt to sell. That is
not a "point of view." It's an observable phenomenon.

However, opposing 'points of view' is often what a 'discussion' is about
and the value of it is how well one supports their position.

while trying to the discredit
the other party with accusations of paranoia, flawed logic, being a
whiner, irrational, conspiracy buff and so on and so on.
You take a totally off-hand discussion of views, on a given subject, and
turn it into a personal thing where you try to discredit a point of
view with personal slurs. Then you have the audacity to say?

*When attempting to work with someone else it's never 'all' one or the
other and that you seem to think so is likely one of the problems.*

I didn't say that and I don't even believe that.
I would think *that* would likely be *your* major problem though
because, as I see it, some of the things I said were "spot-on" and some
of the things you said were "spot-on". However, you have indicated
clearly, on more than one occasion, that you believe you were
*absolutely correct* and I was *absolutely incorrect*.

A beautiful example of taking a perfectly good quote out of context and
misrepresenting it. You might want to consider politics where some treasure
that sort of thing, although, IMO there's too much of it already.

The discussion there was Canada/U.S. oil company negotiations and your
comment "Of course we decide everything in this case, It's still our
country." I presumed you believed it.

Now, I don't know of anything that could be even remotely called
'negotiation' when one side, or the other, takes the position they're going
to "decide everything" and that is what my reply you quote addressed.

The reason I mentioned you is, first, it was your opinion and, second, I
presume Canada is still some form of representative government where the
opinions of the people have at least a modicum of influence so 'it matters'.

Thank you for the sometimes "spot on" bone. I'd have never guessed from
your text.

Man, you have no idea what debate or discussion is.

It would be unwise to place a bet on that.

I *could* play your
game.
I could be saying I think you're nothing but a goddam troll who doesn't
have a life who spends his time in the NGs looking for arguments and
trying to impress people with the thickness of his black book of useless
information. But I won't.
I could also say, I believe you're a condescending lecturer type filled
with a sense of wonder at what you perceive to be *your* wealth of
accumulated knowledge and wisdom. But I won't.

Anyone, including me, can play that stupidly useless "personal card" as
well. Useless because, as I said somewhere far back in these bull****
meanderings, I don't know you, I don't know anything about you, not
what your life is and sure as hell not what your knowledge base or
acquired level of wisdom is. So, how can I, in good conscience, make
personal remarks and/or observations about you without, "logically" (a
word you like to use a lot) having those facts. I can't.

A wonderful speech that, unfortunately, does not comport with experience as
exemplified by your opening salvo in the 'John Doe' exchange saying nothing
of fact or substance on the topic but simply that my remarks were "naive"
and I'd learn better after being "bitten on the ass a few times." And in
various other tirades you've accused me of 'wanting to kiss ass', being
'another amateur psychologist', "Stupid a**hole", unable to read or
understand, and other less than laudatory "personal remarks," none of which
addressed any part of the topic then at hand either.

Your halo needs adjusting.

I must say, though, that your new "I could... but won't" method of personal
attack is much more clever than the old direct outburst style.

One thing I am sure of though and that is the fact that you're one of
the nastiest assholes I've ever been unfortunate enough to come across.
Further communication between us is definitely *not* in the cards.

If I'm the "nastiest" you've run across then you've had a very sheltered
internet experience, indeed.

Have a good "Holiday season"

In all sincerity, you too.