observed and others should not be. It's a really simple question. Nothing at all dishonest about it.



>>I suppose it's easier to rant (with $2 words even), name
>call,
>>and divert rather than actually answer questions or
>elaborate
>>on WHY you feel a certain way...you know, discourse.
>mannered
>>discourse even.
>
>I've elaborated plenty on why I feel a certain way, up to and
>including plainly calling Buddy's response for what it was. I
>haven't diverted at all so I have no clue what you're talking
>about.
>
>I addressed Buddy directly. If you think calling out a
>fallacious question and addressing the question on that merit
>is a "diversion", I don't know what to tell you.
>
>Where's the name calling in here?
>Where haven't I elaborated on why I feel how I feel?
>I've addressed all of this stuff consistently and
>specifically.
>
>>and I also know poasting when i see it too, so play on
>player
>
>Clearly


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"