In Reply to: Re: New Posting Efforts posted by Believer on April 05, 2006 at 02:34:31:
To Nowhere Man, Believer, Oldtimer, susie and Mark:
Now you're getting self-contradictory--BOTH sides of MOST issues on this board have posted long posts.
Sometime, long posts are REQUIRED (as I have said before), because:
1. Some posts are long and obtuse, and a point-by-point response ends up being LONG, BECAUSE the initial statement was LONG AND OBTUSE.
2. Some ridiculous statements ARE LONG, and because #1 is true, restricting the answerer to ONLY short statements is simplistic, and a tactic designed to prevent a thorough and/or intelligent answer! If this cannot be understood, please reply by private email, and I will attempt to break that down so that it is understandable ;-)! Duh!
You can' really have it both ways; can you?
Otherwise you'll be dictating that only the long answers supporting YOUR position are to be allowed, or, if long answers AGAINST your position ARE to be allowed, they are to be ridiculed BASED SOLELY on their length.
This is one of those ""absurd, silly, infantile and/or stupid" positions I was specifically referring to, earlier.
With regards to your 2-part comment “What is going on in your head? Did I miss something? PS, Could you manage to keep your reply down to less than 20 sentences?”, my answer is:
1.Yes, you obviously did miss quite a bit; hence my new questions:
a.Are complex questions, beyond your scope of understanding? And, hence, if so ;-),
b.Are you unable to follow the issues presented in long strings? If so,
c.You should probably excuse yourself, if that sort of endeavor is “out of your depth” (sarcasm intended ;-))
2Get over it, and proceed to more mature self-expression, as no-one is amused.
Semi-sarcastically,
OT2 (OldtimerToo)
PS. Why 20 sentences, in particular; please?