Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
I Call Em As I See Em...

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Robert Garfinkle on March 9, 2003 17:40:11 UTC

That particular post I found amusing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the preceeding post asked you to explain how "Your president Bush should proceed" (carefuluniverse - also Mike), and I think your response was rather eloquent, and to some degree, quite amusing, at least I found it funny, and then I asked you if I could forward (move it along) to email. And I did. Good responses by the way. The email hit about a 300 or so on the onset, who knows how many were forwarded to after that. I believe that email forwards grow exponetially outward when they are good. I had sent the lead in post (Mike's) and then your response.

I respond as needed (of course) to posts, and give my opinion. Yeah, I did not ask, nor think I was due for, what seemed to be, slanderous remarks just because I happen to like a particular post. Hmmm. That was pretty shallow of "the slanderer", but again, I say that the comment (or inclusion) of me as being an insane poster (or inference of insanity), was weak at best. For as little as I post here (except recently), how can someone sum up another person based on a few posts? Then again I ask, how can someone sum up another person period?

To say to someone, "Hey, I disagree with that" or to be further inquisitive by saying "Hmmm. could you explain further" is all that is needed here. Eggshell (superficial) character assasination attempts are just outright wrong.

What I find even more amazing, is in the response to my "Joke" about "The workmans theory of relativity", from Mike, was that he had to make a commentary that included you, and then, I realized that the majority of posts, that he has replied to, or a good handful of them, he has had something to say about "Richard". Why? I ask. Why?
Why is it needed? It was not. My "Joke" had nothing to do with you.

In response to Mike's reply to my "Joke", I asked him to be more specific about what he meant with respect to his unneeded set of commentary, and he has not replied. I normally do not ask for a reply, but was curious this time.

On with the show Richard...

Stay tuned for a new Post entitled "Touche.." coming to a GOD and Science forum near you...

Have a good day...

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2021 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins