Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/02/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]BD You are a man after my own heart! Don Rickles would be proud to know you. Speaking of hearts, I just started re-reading the book you wrote for Larry King on his heart attacks. Since the time that I first read it, I had my own MI which resulted in a stent installation. 5 years ago, and no problems. My cardiologist at UCSD said that a tremendous amount of progress has been made since that book was written. Jerry bdcolen wrote: > Greg - Why be so amazingly disingenuous as to sign such a supercilious, > pointedly nasty personal attack "regards?" Stick to your guns, man! If > you're going to take eight paragraphs to write "fuck you," sign off with > something honest, such as "So there, you asshole!" ;-) > > With utterly no regard, > B. D. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of Greg J. > Lorenzo > Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 6:24 PM > To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > Subject: OT Re: [Leica] Digital - Rumor Mongering apologies to Mark R. > > Hi B.D., > > Lets see if I can sum up your latest missive: > > In Paragraph 1: you are informing me "that this discussion had only > ended". (I assume you meant to say "had not only ended" ?) > > What you're really saying is that YOU had decided it had "ended" and why > > did I dare to catch up on postings YOU had already decided had ended and > > post. I guess you also decided that all the waaay OT Iraq crap you > continued to post last week (after the List Moderator requested that you > > stop) was still "On Topic" and "Open" for continued posts because YOU > had decided it was? > > In Paragraph 2: You continue to attempt to rationalize your completely > and continually irrational behavior of interjecting into posts demanding > > that certain poster's reveal all of their suspect "commercial > affiliations" because B.D. always does this and says so. > > In Paragraph 3: You're addressing someone named "Chris" to insist that > all you've done is "suggested that we be upfront. Not that I have any > power over anyone; not that this is MY LIST; not that I MAKE THE RULES". > > In summary: Why don't YOU reread YOUR OWN WORDS again in all three > Paragraphs below, starting in reverse order 3, 2, 1, just to see if you > may in fact be violating YOUR OWN RULES? > > B.D., respectfully, why don't your get yourself a dog, cat, fish, or > some other interest and thereby spend less time making rules and posting > demands of people on the LUG all day? > > This is my last post on this subject. > > Regards, > > Greg > > bdcolen wrote: > > >It's quite simple, Greg - although if you had bothered to read the time > > >on posts you would have seen that this discussion had only ended, it > >had long ended in far more calm and collegial way than that in which > >you've decided to revive it... > > > >The point is that as we are constantly giving each other advise > >regarding commercial products - and many of us are factoring that > >advice into purchasing decisions - its really nothing more than simple > >good manners to tell each other if we have what might be perceived as > >conflicts of interest. > > > >BTW, Chris, all I've suggested is that we be upfront. Not that I have > >any power over anyone; not that this is my list; not that I make the > >rules. All I did was ask a few questions and make a suggestion.I wonder > > >if you've ever given any thought to the possibility that an outburst > >such as yours - with its offensive religious references and hectoring > >tone - could lead one to wonder why you find the idea of being upfront > >with people so, uh, troubling? ;-) > > > >Best, > > > >B. D. > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > >[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of Greg J. > >Lorenzo > >Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 12:13 AM > >To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > >Subject: Re: [Leica] Digital - Rumor Mongering apologies to Mark R. > > > > > >bdcolen wrote in part: > > > >>I am not questioning Tina's beliefs. > >> > >No your not, your doing something infinitely worse. By your words and > >innuendo YOU are implying that Tina has an ulterior motive for posting > >her opinion and experiences. > > > >>But as I have made quite clear here before, given that we are all > >>friends trading information > >> > >My point exactly. This isn't the Journal of the American Medical > >Association or even Consumer Reports and you're are not Mike Wallace > >doing a segment on Sixty Minutes! Its the Leica Users Group and we > don't > > > >need a self appointed policeman. If you, or anyone else, wishes to > >disclose that they have received a camera, lens or some other trinket > >from Canon, Fuji or Leica that's their business. > > > >What I'd like to know is why YOU think that YOU need to come charging > >into ongoing discussions like Christ to cleanse the Temple and suggest > >that there is something disreputable about a person because they > haven't > > > >disclosed something that YOU believe is germane? > > > >At best this type of behavior is bad manners. > > > >Regards, > > > >Greg > > > >> > > > > > > > >-- > >To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html > > > >-- > >To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html > > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html