Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/02/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]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