Re: DDL

DA Morgan wrote:

>
> <RANT>
> Au contraire. The OP's post is only open to a single interpretation:
> Howards.

Clearly, you have missed the many posts where I have accepted that there are at least two interpretations of the OP's question. And where I state my belief that one of them is, on its face, ludicrous. Which is not to say it doesn't exist, however.

And equally clearly, you have forgotten your gem of a contribution which sparked this all off in the first place: "entirely correct, Howard, but not at all relevant to the question". How many interpretations did that particular post allow for, perchance?

> The rest of us are shallow vapid beings that exist in a barely
> tolerated netherworld.

I realise there is comfort in numbers, but Richard Foote is not shallow, nor vapid. Neither is David, and neither incidentally is Joel, despite my well-publicised disagreements with some of the things he has written of late. You are pretty close on the nose regarding your good self, however. Try not to fling mud around onto others when it was addressed directly to you.

One minor quibble, though: it's your *posts* here which are shallow and vaccuuous. I wouldn't presume to know whether you as a person mirror them.

> Every once in awhile, perhaps by pure chance, we
> get something correct.

True, apparently, for you at least. How else do we explain the ability to participate in a thread without having the faintest idea what feature we were discussing? Don't you feel the slightest bit of contrition about that?

HJR
> I hope you find this as empowering as I have. ;-)
> </RANT>
Received on Tue Nov 23 2004 - 00:00:49 CST