Carl Nisarel wrote:

BottleBob wrote

Carl Nisarel wrote:

BottleBob wrote ...

...

I made no
assertions that Gunner was, or was not, more "well-informed"

"There seems to be a battle of the statistics going on between you and
Gunner which may, or may not, jeopardize your claim to being more
familiar with the data than anyone else."

Keep on waffling, BB.

Carl:

Care to point out the assertion in that paragraph where I stated Gunner
was more "well-informed" than you?

You're moving the goalpost.

Carl:

You said that about Richard. Is this a ploy you commonly use when you
are challenged to support on of your observations but are unable to do
so? I asked you to point out the assertion where I stated Gunner was
more "well-informed" than you. Are you able to do that, or not?


You claimed that you made *no* assertions about it.

I said I made no assertion about Gunner being more well-informed than
you. If you believe otherwise please point it out.



...

I said he may or may not be more
familiar with the data. I didn't make a definitive statement that he
was.

Your 'may or may not' act is lame and you should lose it.

That might be difficult to do. It's an affectation that I've grown to
cherish.


I'd be careful about criticizing other's evaluation skills

I do just fine.

I'm not so sure you do. You've assumed a couple of things about my
communication style that aren't true.

(e.g. See the 'anti-gun' issue). You, OTOH, do need to
be careful.

I try to be careful as I can, but sometimes impressions and
interpretations leak through.

So are you pro-gun, anti-gun, or relatively neutral?

--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob