From: owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen Rowley)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: My dinner with Anderson.
Date: 19 Nov 92 00:29:08 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.032407.28493@macc.wisc.edu>, anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:
> In article <17944@autodesk.COM> owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen
> Rowley) writes:

> I hope you won't be holding your breath too long, Owen, or
> be too shocked to discover that I do not attend upon your
> every word.  

Embeded negatives don't work on those who know the trick Jess.

However I've always figured you don't really read anybody elses posts,
and merely hammer out your commentary based on some strange formula.

How much time could you possibly spend reading, when so much is spent
dispensing such hearty fare.

> Possibly I agreed with your substance, if I
> read it.  Agreement, in other than extraordinary cases, is a
> smaller inducement to comment than disagreement; I know you
> understand since it's your own habit virtually never to
> agree.  You've said it quite often, 

show me where I said that.
Its true I rarely agree with you , but I believe 
I've made some attempts to acknowledge when I do.

> I believe, that you thrive on strife.

Believe what you will. But let me state plainly that I think
dialogue is the spice of life. I don't require that the exchange be
characterised by strife, but neither do I require agreement as
qualification for participation.

What do you thrive on Jess, could it be that an individual who posts 
volume equal to all other participants cares nothing about the attention
it brings? enlighten us Jess, I'd like to know what drives you.

> >But you never comment on the substance of what i post, you
> >wait for a confrontational opportunity.  
> 
> I think you're turned slightly around, good buddy.  The peep
> I heard from you was that pusillanimous pustule of pompous
> bluster responded to above.  

Oh darn, I already removed the pesky little artichoke, well .. its gone now!

> The fact is it was you who
> waited for a confrontational opportunity, which is after all
> your stock in trade.

Your hands and keyboard are pure, unstained by any glimmer
of cattiness of confrontation. I don't think so Jess.

My stock in trade is wordsmithing in ways that promote thinking
Jess. One of the big differences between us is that I don't insist that
the reader winds up thinking my thoughts in place of their own.

I don't shrink from confrontation, but I don't seek it out.

> >But you did remember to remove the substance I was
> >commenting about.
> 
> .... substance or no.  I hadn't realized you doted on my
> favor to quite that degree.  I hope you won't find it too
> parental of me to suggest it's time you were weaned.

Don't flatter yourself, out of the bulk of jess-0-bytes that
flood through the newsgroup, I sample quite little. 

I have no prblem with you as a person Jess, and a few years back I 
actually thought there was some mutual respect for our differences of
opinion. But I've come to a different position now. Your 
tendency to dismiss all other viewpoints as moronic, and your
patronising habit of never looking back at your own trail when
you get bitchy has left me fairly indifferent towards you.

> I know it's bragging, but I thought the Yahweh cult crack
> was hilarious, couldn't have happened at a better moment.

In all honesty Jess, it was pretty bland to me .

> It was churlish, however, I'll now confess, not to commend
> you for "creamed scorn."

you're welcome.

Pass the peaze.

LUX ./. owen



--
D. Owen Rowley {uunet,fernwood,sun}!autodesk!owen

  " It will be a cold March 17th that I celebrate the imposition of
	Romes rule, on Pagan Ireland. Erin go ppphhhhhttttttt! "