Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/08/05

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Re: A Challenge
From: Mark Rabiner <mrabiner@concentric.net>
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 11:42:33 -0700

Roger Beamon wrote:
> 
> On 4 Aug 99, Mark Rabiner wrote, at least in part:
> 
> > Roger Beamon wrote:
> > >
> > > On 4 Aug 99, Jim Brick wrote, at least in part:
> > >
> > > > I predict that if such a "week" happened, it would be the slowest LUG
> > > > week ever. Everyone would think that the LUG is broken.><snip>
> > > I like the Leica-Users List also, but not because of the intelligence
> > > level which I, frankly, think is no higher than other lists, merely more
> > > voluble!
> > >
> > > Folk interested in niche products tend to talk at greater length
> > > about them than those interested in the garden variety items.
> > > Besides, most C----, N---- and M------ users are out
> > > photographing and not trying to convince the world of the
> > > legitimacy of their pets.
> > ><snip>
> > > Roger
> > ><snip>
> > What a pain in the ass thing to say! We're not smarter, just angrier and
> > more insecure. I'm sure we are all glad you enjoy our company! Lugnuts are
> > trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient,
> > cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent. And If you don't think so
> > join another paramilitary organization. Mark Rabiner
> 
> Mark, take a bit more time in what you quote. It's difficult above
> to understand to whom you're responding. If it is me, then you're
> putting words in my mouth. I said nothing about Leica-Users List
> subscribers being angry or insecure. I didn't even remotely imply
> such. Strictly your inference, old boy, and that smacks of anger
> and insecurity.
> 
> *Another* paramilitary organization? There, you are clearly
> implying that this is one. I think not!
> 
> --
> Roger

Much apologies here as I was thrown by: 
"the intelligence level which I, frankly, think is no higher than other lists,
merely more voluble!
I double checked on "voluble" and sure enough I had always thought that word
meant angry but it means talkative.
So the jist is I thought you were saying we're angry instead of smart which
although having a grain of occasional truth as in the right here and now would
be a pretty offhandedly low cut. And I was not defending myself but the whole group.
I will go to the hardware store to get an intrenching tool to remove multi
layers of incrusted egg from face.
The paramilitary thing was off the wall fairly meaningless humor as I have
somehow retained the entire Boy Scout list in my brain instead of the proper
definition for "voluble." But what's the headline in the paper this morning? The
Boy Scouts who have been forced to let in gays. The issue having nothing to do
with anything but a coincidence that I am spouting their unabridged programming
at 2 am!
My apologies again you are no more of a negative energy pain in the ass than
myself or anyone else I have anything to do with!
Mark Rabiner