"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

Watch a few hundred more exchanges like this, and you will know.

OK, let's word it this way. Gunner made a reasonable post, and Jim
took exception to it. I'm asking what the problem is.

The full answer is too long to post.


Right now,
you don't have a clue, and I'm not going to recount several years worth
of
discussions just to satisfy your sense of indignation.

It's obvious where the problem is. By the way, the lecture-tone doesn't
work with me.

I know. I don't care.


If you don't want to sound like a deaf man shouting from inside a
barrel,
listen first.

I've heard all I need to hear to know what the situation is. Jim doesn't
like Gunner.

That's where you first jumped the track. Jim DOES like Gunner. And I like
Gunner. Gunner's head is as thick as an old stump, but he's a very decent
guy and he's well liked.

Next issue?

I was challenging his post where he was criticizing
Gunner's statement, because I wanted to know exactly what he thought
was false about Gunner's post.

As he said, he didn't disagree about the Rowan case.

You and pyotr were joking about Carl Rowan. Gunner took the opportunity to
pass on one of his anti-liberal monologues (he rarely misses a chance to
kick them) and Jim cracked that Gunner was "socking it to 'em," which fit
with the subject of the jokes and also commented on Gunner never failing to
stick his pitchfork into liberals or Democrats in any conversation, whether
it's a joke or not. Nearly every regular here knew what was going on and
what the comment was about.

You, in your sometimes bristly manner, got ****y with Jim and Jim then
brushed you off because he wasn't up for it.

That's what happened. That's what it was all about. And that's why I say to
listen before jumping.

--
Ed Huntress