In reply to:
First,it seems you didn't bother reading the posts. Then, you do a "drive by".........throwing abstract, negative references, against the wall, to see if anything sticks.
Alright then, won't let a sleeping dog lie - then once more into the breach... I did read the posts. If I have mischaracterized anyone's post, perhaps it's the fault of the poster for being vague on their opinion and reason for posting. As for a drive-by, I'll just remind you you brought the subject up originally, then drew first blood with your characterization of me as "over the top", all I did was pointed out that others with a different take on the subject had done the same, but left things ohh,
just open enough to interpretation as to leave some doubt about what they were saying so as not to be called on it. Pardon me for being clear.
In reply to:
And, when that fails to ruin the thread, you blame the author.
Tell me, Larry... who tried to shut down debate on this? The thread didn't go in the direction you hoped - a mass of bobbleheads nodding in approval.
In reply to:
The old "flame, and blame".......hmmmmm, where have I seen that tactic before?
Ah, yes, the ol' "I couldn't stand the heat, I got out of the kitchen and now I'm pointing to anyone else I can as the arsonist"... try this sometime - stand up tall, take an arrow yourself... shifting blame to me is easy, I'm a bit of a conduit for it.
In reply to:
Oh yes, and thank you for adding the "redneck" stuff.....your rants are now complete!
I just give the audience what it wants. You asked, you got it. As for ranting, I think all that followed my post falls more into that category. It suddenly got 90% more "yeehaw!" in here.
Bren R.
