![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 133 to 157 of 187. Go back in thread:
Posted by gabbii on August 4, 2005, at 16:43:22
In reply to Am I the user *SOO?????, posted by barosky on August 4, 2005, at 16:28:04
> So maybe i've been subconsciencely reiterating aspects of SO's posts without knowing it, I do that alot.
>
> I am very open to addressing this issue and it is strange how I have become so much equated with SO, even though I AM NOT THAT USER.
>
> I don't know how I would prove it, maybe Bob could do an i.p. check or ,something , check what email I posted with. ANYTHING I"D BE OPEN TO , because I am NOT SO!You don't have to, it's clear you're not so, and actually the poster who capitalized So in her post.. as in "SO" familiar" did it inadvertantly, she actually thought you reminded her of someone else, and GG (if you saw her post) wasn't referring to So either. Aside from this latest post no one else has thought you were, or at least if they did they haven't said it on the board.
Over the years, many people have brought up criticisms similar to yours, I don't think they are all incarnations of So.
Posted by crushedout on August 4, 2005, at 17:07:35
In reply to Re: THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT!!!!!!!!!, posted by barosky on August 3, 2005, at 17:00:53
why did you misquote me, barosky? you deleted the last line of my post.i think you're preaching to the choir. i've been here for a while and big part of my point was that i don't think the rules are enforced fairly. and if you read some of my recent threads i have been complaining about that. i only made the point that i think the rules *in principle* are not a bad idea. i just wish we had a better enforcement system.
Posted by gabbii on August 4, 2005, at 17:27:42
In reply to Re: THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT!!!!!!!!! » barosky, posted by crushedout on August 4, 2005, at 17:07:35
>
i only made the point that i think the rules *in principle* are not a bad idea. i just wish we had a better enforcement system.Yeah. that's it. I wish I'd said that.
Posted by Nickengland on August 4, 2005, at 17:29:25
In reply to Am I the user *SOO?????, posted by barosky on August 4, 2005, at 16:28:04
I found it very interesting and like I said a coincidence...i'm sure you understand. Thanks for replying and sorry if any offense was recieved your end.
Of course Dr Bob could do checks..it wasn't my point for him to do such checks or draw him to this message.
The thing is with SO as i'm sure you'll agree he was a very interesting intelligent poster to communicate with - at least I found that anyway...and yes some of it was alittle extream I do agree.
LOL of course without adding anymore confusion and please forgive me as I dont want to sound like Columbo. But obviously for arguments sake if you was 'so' then the last thing you would do, would be to admit that you was as 'so' is currently blocked and if he was to post whilst blocked he would then have to start his block all over. What with 'so' being intelligent that he is the last thing he would do is use the same email address to re-register. As for i.p address there are plenty of programmes you can use you block your i.p address or each time you use your computer you can actually have an i.p address annoymous programme where it shows a different i.p address to the actual one you have....people actually use them specially for blocking there i.p address information from internet forums so I read.
Maybe when 'so' eventually returns you and him will have some interesting discussions...I certainly found my talks with him very interesting.
Kind regards
Nick
Posted by Nickengland on August 4, 2005, at 18:17:11
In reply to Re: I think it's ironic » Nickengland, posted by gabbii on August 4, 2005, at 16:25:34
>Yes, which is why I don't think people who criticize how it is run now should be made to feel as if they should go elsewhere.
Thats a very fair point.
Would this equate to..
Before there was no rules as such and people criticized....but what was they criticising?...because there were no rules to criticize?...was that the problem they were criticising - that they wanted rules?
Anyway, rules are made for these people and all is well so to speak for that generation if you like.
This is where I don't quite understand what your saying....the people before had no rules - they get rules.
Now people come along...and they can't fit into the rules, so are you saying the rules should now be changed yet again?
I understand you say, they shouldn't be made to feel they should go elsewhere just because they critisise how it is run. Well before there was no rules and people critisised then and rules were given. So do you feel that these new people, to be treated fairly should be given new rules too?...because they can't get along with the ones given.
With people going elsewhere, I think there is something ironic here too. Correct me if i'm wrong but from what I gather you took a liking to the poster of 'so'. Now the poster of 'so' made one of his intentions very clear indeed and that was this site should be shut down - therefore everyone would have to go elsewhere.
If i'm one of these people who you think gives the impression that people who criticise the site should go elsewhere, then please be rest assured that its only when the threat is first given to me as it was by 'so' that i respond in a such a way in the first place. I know 'so' hasn't even directly entered this discussion, but my post with barosky indirectly included him and is why it brought up the thoughts of what I said in the first place, when I originally posted that message.
That is the only case where I personally will say people might be better off elsewhere, is when someone threatens the whole entire existance of this site and everyone in it, that they could possibly be better off elsewhere.
Lets not have your point be forgotten sure, but lets not forget that what 'so's agenda was that he posted was largescale 'elsewhere-ness' and this is the poeple you are defending. Its like double irony.
Posted by Nickengland on August 4, 2005, at 19:53:57
In reply to Re: I think it's ironic, posted by Nickengland on August 4, 2005, at 18:17:11
Posted by crazy teresa on August 4, 2005, at 20:06:34
In reply to Above for gabbii (nm), posted by Nickengland on August 4, 2005, at 19:53:57
If you have anything else to post about my block or PBC, please babblemail me. I won't be coming back here to look; this board makes me a nervous wreck!
crazy t
Posted by crazy teresa on August 4, 2005, at 20:09:30
In reply to Am I watching Jerry Springer?????? » Nickengland, posted by crazy teresa on August 4, 2005, at 20:06:34
Sorry, Nickengland.
The above post was not specifically for you.
crazy t
Posted by MCK on August 4, 2005, at 20:30:46
In reply to Re: Am I the user *SOO????? » barosky, posted by Nickengland on August 4, 2005, at 17:29:25
What is Barosky supposed to say -- he can't win.
Another option is that YOU could be so and deflecting suspicion by accusing another poster of being him or maybe you're Barosky too!
Or maybe Gabby is SO after all she "took a liking to him" If you'd paid the attention you should before making assumptions you'd have seen that he appreciated her kindness, although he said "she maintained her own person by not having to agree or side with him"Placing "bear with me, forgive me, and kind regards around your statements doesn't hide your intent.
And Gabby post more would you?
This lurker is besotted.
> LOL of course without adding anymore confusion and please forgive me as I dont want to sound like Columbo. But obviously for arguments sake if you was 'so' then the last thing you would do, would be to admit that you was as 'so' is currently blocked and if he was to post whilst blocked he would then have to start his block all over. What with 'so' being intelligent that he is the last thing he would do is use the same email address to re-register. As for i.p address there are plenty of programmes you can use you block your i.p address or each time you use your computer you can actually have an i.p address annoymous programme where it shows a different i.p address to the actual one you have....people actually use them specially for blocking there i.p address information from internet forums so I read.
>
> Maybe when 'so' eventually returns you and him will have some interesting discussions...I certainly found my talks with him very interesting.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Nick
Posted by MCK on August 4, 2005, at 20:36:27
In reply to Re: I think it's ironic, posted by Nickengland on August 4, 2005, at 18:17:11
> >Yes, which is why I don't think people who criticize how it is run now should be made to feel as if they should go elsewhere.
>
> Thats a very fair point.
>
> Would this equate to..
>
> Before there was no rules as such and people criticized....but what was they criticising?...because there were no rules to criticize?...was that the problem they were criticising - that they wanted rules?
>
> Anyway, rules are made for these people and all is well so to speak for that generation if you like.
>
> This is where I don't quite understand what your saying....the people before had no rules - they get rules.
>
> Now people come along...and they can't fit into the rules, so are you saying the rules should now be changed yet again?
>
> I understand you say, they shouldn't be made to feel they should go elsewhere just because they critisise how it is run. Well before there was no rules and people critisised then and rules were given. So do you feel that these new people, to be treated fairly should be given new rules too?...because they can't get along with the ones given.
>
> With people going elsewhere, I think there is something ironic here too. Correct me if i'm wrong but from what I gather you took a liking to the poster of 'so'. Now the poster of 'so' made one of his intentions very clear indeed and that was this site should be shut down - therefore everyone would have to go elsewhere.
>
> If i'm one of these people who you think gives the impression that people who criticise the site should go elsewhere, then please be rest assured that its only when the threat is first given to me as it was by 'so' that i respond in a such a way in the first place. I know 'so' hasn't even directly entered this discussion, but my post with barosky indirectly included him and is why it brought up the thoughts of what I said in the first place, when I originally posted that message.
>
> That is the only case where I personally will say people might be better off elsewhere, is when someone threatens the whole entire existance of this site and everyone in it, that they could possibly be better off elsewhere.
>
No, you indirectly gave the same message to Barosky, but of course anyone who has similar criticisms to SO must be SO therefore I guess according to your standards it's okay for you to infer that they all should go elsewhere.
Posted by gabbii on August 4, 2005, at 21:26:59
In reply to Re: I think it's ironic, posted by Nickengland on August 4, 2005, at 18:17:11
> >Yes, which is why I don't think people who criticize how it is run now should be made to feel as if they should go elsewhere.
>
> Thats a very fair point.
>
> Would this equate to..
>
> Before there was no rules as such and people criticized....but what was they criticising?...because there were no rules to criticize?...was that the problem they were criticising - that they wanted rules?
>Yes, rules, reasons for implementing, poster behaviour, limitations, consequences for breaking rules,
> Anyway, rules are made for these people and all is well so to speak for that generation if you like.
>
> This is where I don't quite understand what your saying....the people before had no rules - they get rules.
>
> Now people come along...and they can't fit into the rules, so are you saying the rules should now be changed yet again?
>It's not static, people have different ideas, thing continue to evolve, as is the case for almost everything. Dr. Bob has actually encouraged it. To say as much as "We are going to do it this way because this is the way we've been doing it" isn't everyone's idea of what is best.
> I understand you say, they shouldn't be made to feel they should go elsewhere just because they critisise how it is run. Well before there was no rules and people critisised then and rules were given. So do you feel that these new people, to be treated fairly should be given new rules too?...because they can't get along with the ones given.
>
> With people going elsewhere, I think there is something ironic here too. Correct me if i'm wrong but from what I gather you took a liking to the poster of 'so'. Now the poster of 'so' made one of his intentions very clear indeed and that was this site should be shut down - therefore everyone would have to go elsewhere.
>There is no relevence in that statement to this discussion at all.
If you (as you inferred) "like" a poster does that mean you and their opinions are interchangeable?
That was So's preference and you were welcome to take it up with him. What it has to do with me simply because I didn't attack him is beyond me. Had I agreed with it (his intent) I could almost see how it's germaine to the topic.
As it is, I'll say this. I like and dislike people, I agree and disagree with ideologies. How much one's ideas influence my "liking" them depend of course on my passions.
I'm quite capable of 'liking' someone and disagreeing with them, as well as the opposite. I respond to what is being said, not what other things may influence my feelings about the poster, as much as is humanly possible anyway.And that's it for me on this topic.
influences the other
> If i'm one of these people who you think gives the impression that people who criticise the site should go elsewhere, then please be rest assured that its only when the threat is first given to me as it was by 'so' that i respond in a such a way in the first place. I know 'so' hasn't even directly entered this discussion, but my post with barosky indirectly included him and is why it brought up the thoughts of what I said in the first place, when I originally posted that message.
>
> That is the only case where I personally will say people might be better off elsewhere, is when someone threatens the whole entire existance of this site and everyone in it, that they could possibly be better off elsewhere.
>
> Lets not have your point be forgotten sure, but lets not forget that what 'so's agenda was that he posted was largescale 'elsewhere-ness' and this is the poeple you are defending. Its like double irony.
Posted by gabbii on August 4, 2005, at 21:33:15
In reply to Springer it is » Nickengland, posted by MCK on August 4, 2005, at 20:30:46
> Or maybe Gabby is SO after all she "took a liking to him" If you'd paid the attention you should before making assumptions you'd have seen that he appreciated her kindness, although he said "she maintained her own person by not having to agree or side with him"
>
Thank you MCK for pointing that out, it's kind a nice to know I can talk to someone and still be known for what I've actually said.Besotted eh?
SMOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOTH
You know it kind of freaks me out how you pop out of nowhere..
Posted by gardenergirl on August 5, 2005, at 0:55:15
In reply to Re: THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT!!!!!!!!! » gardenergirl, posted by 10derHeart on August 4, 2005, at 0:12:12
Posted by barosky on August 5, 2005, at 3:04:15
In reply to Re: THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT!!!!!!!!! » barosky, posted by crushedout on August 4, 2005, at 17:07:35
>
> why did you misquote me, barosky? you deleted the last line of my post.
>
> i think you're preaching to the choir. i've been here for a while and big part of my point was that i don't think the rules are enforced fairly. and if you read some of my recent threads i have been complaining about that. i only made the point that i think the rules *in principle* are not a bad idea. i just wish we had a better enforcement system.The only reason I delete parts of ones post when replying is so that one doesen't have to scroll through an abundance of text that they most likely already read ,
Posted by Nickengland on August 5, 2005, at 5:18:15
In reply to Springer it is » Nickengland, posted by MCK on August 4, 2005, at 20:30:46
>What is Barosky supposed to say -- he can't win.
I'm not here to point score and i'm glad Barosky was open to what I said like he stated in his message to me. I was simply seeing and posting what I saw was a coincidence and then posting my thoughts on the matter.
>Another option is that YOU could be so and deflecting suspicion by accusing another poster of being him or maybe you're Barosky too!
Or maybe Gabby is SO after all she "took a liking to him" If you'd paid the attention you should before making assumptions you'd have seen that he appreciated her kindness, although he said "she maintained her own person by not having to agree or side with him"
LOL An another option is your SO - but then come on, I was kind of making a light hearted joke about being Columbo, thats all I was doing there back in that post, just like I did with that.If you want to take it further and start using block capitals to shout "YOU" at me, thats perfectly up to you, i'm afriad thats not my style to start shouting back though, so I won't be rising to that kind of message.
>Placing "bear with me, forgive me, and kind regards around your statements doesn't hide your intent.
Lets get one thing crystal clear MCK. Firsly placing "bear with me" means exactly that, as this is Administration after all and all i'm trying to do is ask that readers bear with what I have to say - more importantly I was asking Barosky to bear with me. Which judging from his reply I think he did.
Secondly, forgive means exactly that again, because this is administration and people emotions normally run high here, I was stating in advance, to basically forgive me if I offend anyone. You have been offened I see that quite obviously and I appologise profusely for that.
Kind regards - means exactly that. I have mannors and i'm a pretty friendly person in real life. This relects on how I am in an internet forum too. I hate arguments of any kind, if you must really know. So I always try and use kind words whenever I can. Have an argument with me in real life and you'll know i'll never end it on a bad word. I hope I don't have to do that here either.
My intent was to show that I saw a coincidence, one that perhaps you did not see yourself. The other words I used are not 'cover ups' as you are suggesting to hide my acutal intent. If you have any problem believing that, seach my name in google, I would be willing to bet as much as 98% of my posts whether about medications, which used to be the majoirty of them always start with hello - to the posters name and end with kind regards. Its just respect and mannors. Thats all.
Kind regards - In your case, i'll be willing not to use this if you request otherwise. Just out of respect for you. I'm not here to call cause trouble or wind people up.
Nick
Posted by Nickengland on August 5, 2005, at 5:50:47
In reply to Re: I think it's Ridiculous Nick » Nickengland, posted by MCK on August 4, 2005, at 20:36:27
Hello again MCK - And please like I say before if you prefer I do not use mannors to address you to say 'hello' request otherwise and i'll jump straght into the message.
>No, you indirectly gave the same message to Barosky, but of course anyone who has similar criticisms to SO must be SO therefore I guess according to your standards it's okay for you to infer that they all should go elsewhere.This I think is what is called jumping to the wrong conclusions.
"of course anyone who has similar criticisms to SO must be SO therefore I guess according to your standards it's okay for you to infer that they all should go elsewhere."
No, I have never before and should not be proven guilty for the future of my actions that I will accuse 'anyone' in the future that if they have similar criticisms they must be 'so'
I did indeed say in that message you replyed too..
>That is the only case where I personally will say people might be better off elsewhere, is when someone threatens the whole entire existance of this site and everyone in it, that they could possibly be better off elsewhere.
Hence "this is the only case"
If you want to know more about my standards i'll tell you this. I was in mid conversation with 'so' when he/she got blocked and he/she never got the chance to answer some of my questions. There was certain things that stuck in my mind with what 'so' said upon his return.
i.e 'so' said something along the lines of, upon his return he will not make himself known that 'he' has returned...he knows covert ways to hide himself etc etc I can't remember the exact words but it was more or less something along the lines that he wasn't exactly going to post back with "hi, im 'so', im back from from block how is everyone?" You get what I mean. Now when I saw what I thought barosky's post was similar and he more or less agreed some parts of it were as well too. I posted that I thought it was a coincidence.
I asked Gabbi a similar question eariler on as she said that it could not be 'so' that is incorrect. I asked how she would know, but she prefered not to comment on how she could be certain it was not. I'm still left with curosity and for the record I look forward to speaking with 'so' again as he really got me thinking when I coresponded with him, with regards to some areas of discussion we had together.
This does not mean that now i'm going to accuse everyone that they are 'so' so please don't jump to conclusions about my standards, as I am not judging yours.
Kind regards
Nick
Posted by Nickengland on August 5, 2005, at 6:49:20
In reply to Re: I think it's ironic » Nickengland, posted by gabbii on August 4, 2005, at 21:26:59
Hello Gabbii
>There is no relevence in that statement to this discussion at all.
Well in actual fact there is complete relevence to the discussion. To suggest what I say has no relevence and then offer no further comment is of course your free will.
I'll expalin the relevence. I said this....
>Finally if you really detest the practice and function of this site so badly that you just want to see it shut down and no matter what happens you just don't like what goes on here.....well being a hetrosexual male i'm not into wearing pink knickers, for this reason I dont hang around the places that sell them.
Hence, "detest the practice and function of this site so badly that you just want to see it shut down and no matter what happens you just don't like what goes on here"
I then said...
"well being a hetrosexual male i'm not into wearing pink knickers, for this reason I dont hang around the places that sell them."
You then explained that people should not have to feel like they have to go elsewhere just because they critisise. I agreed.
Now I felt that you wasn't just making a sweeping general statement but replying to what I had to say. The point is when I made that statement I had in mind what 'so' said when he stated that the site should be shut down.
The point with my statement and how it is relevent is that I have only made the suggestion that if someone says that.. 'we will all have to go elsewhere because the site should be shut down' -that is my only motives in what I said and why I did.
If you choose to say people should not have to go elsewhere and i agree - thats good yes? When I say, i'm saying 'so' said the site should be shut down, "we would all have to go elsewhere" I then suggest perhaps people who think this would be better elsewhere. You defend 'so' and will not commnet that indeed he is saying you would have to go elsewhere. Why single me out when he drew first blood if you like? Thats the irony. Thats the relevence
I think its admirable that you can say what you do and indeed you have taught me valuable lessons in this discussion.
Kind regards
Nick
Posted by Nickengland on August 5, 2005, at 6:51:15
In reply to Re: Am I watching Jerry Springer??????, posted by crazy teresa on August 4, 2005, at 20:09:30
Thats ok Teresa :-)
Posted by crushedout on August 5, 2005, at 6:58:05
In reply to Re: I think it's ironic » gabbii, posted by Nickengland on August 5, 2005, at 6:49:20
> well being a hetrosexual male i'm not into wearing pink knickers,
i don't appreciate the implication that gay men are into wearing pink knickers (nor, for that matter, the one that straight men automatically are not).
Posted by Nickengland on August 5, 2005, at 7:51:01
In reply to Dr. Bob, I don't think this is civil (post by Nick, posted by crushedout on August 5, 2005, at 6:58:05
Hi crushedout
Would you then appreciate it if I was to re-phrase the example then?..I'll happy to do that for you and anyone else.
I did not intend to discriminate gay men at all. I was saying 'I' do not wear pink knickers...and I was saying 'I' am hetrosexual.
I would feel it is uncivil if i cannot post my sexual preference and what underwear I wear....
I'm sure If this was in social I wouldn't get PBC for this, as in asking a 'what kind of underwear do you wear survey' or 'what is your sexual preference.' and even if the 2 are linked.
Am I not alowed to say what colour underwear I wear and what type i do then? (in your view)
Also am I not allowed to say what my sexual preference is? (in your view)
Also what if I said I was a hetrosexual male and I do like wearing pink knickers? Thats ok or not?...
Posted by crushedout on August 5, 2005, at 7:58:36
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob, I don't think this is civil (post by Nick » crushedout, posted by Nickengland on August 5, 2005, at 7:51:01
if you said, "i'm straight *and* i don't like to wear pink knickers" that wouldn't have bothered me one bit. you used the word "being" which implies that all straight men don't like to wear pink knickers, which also implies that men who aren't straight do.
i think you know that perfectly well.
and you might want to think about your assumptions.
i would have asked dr. bob for a civility determination regardless of the board you posted it on.
kind regards,
crushedout
Posted by Nickengland on August 5, 2005, at 8:20:24
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob, I don't think this is civil (post by » Nickengland, posted by crushedout on August 5, 2005, at 7:58:36
I wasn't trying to imply anything though and gay people were the last thing on my mind at the time of writing that statement. In your eyes I made the mistake of using the word 'being' I appologise for using the word 'being' then. I never realised at the time it could have such implications.
>and you might want to think about your assumptions.
Likewise - xxx I worked in a bar/restaurant for many months which was owned by gays. I worked along side gay men. I have no problem what so ever of gay people, be it women or men. If your assuming that I am homophobic, then please say. I'm sure my ex-employers will say otherwise and the gay friends I have. If you are not assuming that, then sorry that I am jumping to conclusions but that is the feeling I am getting.
Otherwise, again I am sorry for using the word 'being'
I see that the only implications of your post are to get me a PBC. I would hope you could ask me directly, but of course I respect the fact you wish to communicate with Dr Bob on this and appreicate you replying to me.
Kind regards
Nick
Posted by Nickengland on August 5, 2005, at 8:37:43
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob, I don't think this is civil (post by » Nickengland, posted by crushedout on August 5, 2005, at 7:58:36
...In this thread or in babble.
I realise I have set myself a trap here which I did not mean to do and have now opened myself up to possible attacks. I say trap as I dont know what other word to use. Potential for attacks? I really don't know, I don't regret anything i've said, as otherwise I would not have learned from this discussion.
This will only result in bad feeling if it continues. I don't want bad feelings for anyone here.
I'm not going to say I will not post anymore on the subjects i've raised but all I will say is I do not want bad feeling or to fall out with people where possible. I realise perhaps some people may not choose to want to communinate with me nicely for some of the things i've said in this thread and i'm sorry for that.
Make me out to be the bad guy if you like and perhaps I am, as of course i don't claim to be perfect. I know these things end with people doing the "do not post" stuff though and PBC's and then blocks happen and god knows what. I don't want that to happen where it is in my power to stop it. This message is about as much power as I have to stop it right now, so better said than not.
Peace
Nick
Posted by Slinky on August 5, 2005, at 11:38:26
In reply to I don't want to make any enemies here..., posted by Nickengland on August 5, 2005, at 8:37:43
Hi Nick..
..My problem is my white knickers got in the washing machine with red clothes now ther're all pink..I'm straight now but sometimes I think I'm bisexual..so is that because pink knickers affect my sexual preference..pink sure is a magic colour.
Checking..........
Hmm.. today I'm wearing pink ..Regards Slinky
Posted by gabbii on August 5, 2005, at 12:09:05
In reply to Re: I think it's ironic » gabbii, posted by Nickengland on August 5, 2005, at 6:49:20
>
> If you choose to say people should not have to go elsewhere and i agree - thats good yes? When I say, i'm saying 'so' said the site should be shut down, "we would all have to go elsewhere" I then suggest perhaps people who think this would be better elsewhere.You defend 'so' and will not commnet that indeed he is saying you would have to go elsewhere.
I have nothing to do with that Nick, it's his comment, I did not defend it, you are the one who for some reason thinks I agreed his every word. I didn't join the "So party" I valued much of what he had to say, there's a difference.
> Why single me out when he drew first blood if you like? Thats the irony. Thats the relevenceI disagreed with him at times too Nick.
However when you use words like "drew blood" and "singled out"
I realize that you are likely taking this far more personally than was ever intended.
I was saying I didn't think it was beneficial for it to be suggested that everyone who criticizes the site go elsewhere.
I was not attacking you, drawing blood, or singleing you out I didn't have SO in mind.I suggested this because I was referring to a post of yours to Barosky. You'd said basically if something wasn't to your taste you go elsewhere..
I'm not a mind reader, I didn't know that in your post to Barosky you were actually referring to So. I had no desire to get into an entirely different discussion about So's intentions..Now let's drop this please
I can't seem to make my point without you feeling persecuted, or without SO being brought into it.>
> I think its admirable that you can say what you do and indeed you have taught me valuable lessons in this discussion.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Nick
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.