SAY WHAT JACK???

As a life-goal, Eric, it lacks a certain majesty. Surely you have more important things to accomplish, and I'm just a fly in the ointment anyway.

The Bisbee Avenger wrote:

Jack wrote:

As a life-goal, Eric, it lacks a certain majesty. Surely you have more important things to accomplish, and I'm just a fly in the ointment anyway.

That may be true. But please don't call me "Shirley."

Why? I've called you worse things. . . but I'm safely medicated for a day or two.

And don't forget I predicted this last side trip from the dark side was a bunch of crap.

Snooper wrote:

And don't forget I predicted this last side trip from the dark side was a bunch of crap.

I'm gonna let Eric answer this, if he will, please. I will only say, Snooper, that "There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Jack wrote:

Snooper wrote:

And don't forget I predicted this last side trip from the dark side was a bunch of crap.

I'm gonna let Eric answer this, if he will, please. I will only say, Snooper, that "There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Jack is what he is. He can no more change himself than a scorpion can.

lucky for the flap jack, he is self turning.

Jack is what he is. He can no more change himself than a scorpion can.[/quote]

Thanks, Eric. I knew I could count on you for an explanation.

Jack wrote:

Jack is what he is. He can no more change himself than a scorpion can.

Thanks, Eric. I knew I could count on you for an explanation.[/quote]

Do you still refer to another human being on that other board as "skidmark"? How much kindness does it take to compare someone with fecal matter smeared on underwear?

The Bisbee Avenger wrote:

Jack is the type of man who would say, with no hint of the absurdity, that "(y)our assertion about Carter is gratuitous and inflammatory -- and unbased in the factual world" as though his opinion is the last word on what is fact.

The man is, truly, at times an arrogant asshole.

Well, at least you've quoted your own assessment which was only a part of the long exchange of messages between us yesterday. I sorta figured you'd have to get that one out in addition to the scorpion characterization.
And I also figured that you would make no mention of any of the rest of the discussion in those messages. I hoped for better from you, but was prepared to see exactly what you did. It's typical.
So this was your call to deal with. You could have been honest and forthcoming about what was going on 'behind the scenes', but you weren't -- yet again.

I firmly believe that I tried hard to give you the benefit of the doubt, and explain to you why your posts on Topix produced the response from me which was attacked above. I also firmly believe that you have been MUCH less than honest with your posts and comments here regarding this situation. Your choice.

Once again, a non-response from Eric. What about the dialogue yesterday? We've had several conclusions from you now; you feel comfortable with both sides being aired?

As I attempted to tell you yesterday, if you will bring honest, rational ideas "to the table", you will get my full cooperation and respect -- though we will probably always disagree on most things.

In your most recent post, you have actively misrepresented at least two of my expressed positions, engaged in name-calling to the detriment of discussion, and used ad hominem fallacies to reinforce your errors. Good work.

"Honest rational ideas??" Jack, watch out... i looked for that about a month ago, and got booted (banned) from the site. Every body thought that I was someone in Bisbee, not just some puppet for she that will remain nameless, I am just some online entity here in Philadelphia, where the city government here decided to vote on and pass their own gun laws. Go figure...

By the way, I saw that "big"fire on the national news, I hope there was not much damage. And what was the name of that movie they filmed there? anybody know?

Jeff Lite wrote:

...In your most recent post, you have actively misrepresented at least two of my expressed positions, engaged in name-calling to the detriment of discussion, and used ad hominem fallacies to reinforce your errors. Good work.

You were an excellent teacher, Jack.

The Bisbee Avenger wrote:

Jeff Lite wrote:

...In your most recent post, you have actively misrepresented at least two of my expressed positions, engaged in name-calling to the detriment of discussion, and used ad hominem fallacies to reinforce your errors. Good work.

You were an excellent teacher, Jack.

Your offensive use of 'smilies' is but another facet of your general obnoxiousness in this conversation. The constant use of name-calling is, it turns out, not beneath you, after all. I should have expected no more; I did expect no less.

For future reference, Eric: your tactics are not productive of good conversation. But then, you already knew that, didn't you?

Ok, now I am wondering what exactly is Jack doing? He attacks other people and sees nothing wrong with that. He changes the subject or goes off topic and sees nothing wrong with that. But let Eric do it and he gets all self righteous. I am totally confused. He doesn't even have the good grace to pretend not to be prejudice. Is he Jeff lite? Interesting notion. Just what is the difference between the obsession he claims Eric has with Jeff and the one HE has with Eric?

I gotta say this is an unpleasant turn. Whether by accident or intent Jack is basically allowing Jeff to divert focus from himself to someone else. Is that what you wanted Jack?

HA HA HA HA HA. You thought Cannon could be reasoned with? HA HA HA HA.

Elysian wrote:

I gotta say this is an unpleasant turn. Whether by accident or intent Jack is basically allowing Jeff to divert focus from himself to someone else. Is that what you wanted Jack?

I don't see Jeff poking his head up anywhere (I may be utterly blind to his tactics and traits, but I don't think so). What I do see is eric routinely diverting discussion on other topics into his obsession with the elusive and ever-anonymous Jeff.

The difference (as I see it, admittedly) between that obsession and my "obsession" is that I have little doubt that eric [u]could be[u] a valuable asset to almost any discussion, if he would simply settle down and do it, instead of relating everything to Jeff and trying out his third-grade remarks on us. He has become notorious for hijacking threads and discussions through those two tactics. I've told him privately, and I'll say it here now: were he to show consistently the mind he's shown on a few occasions, he would be someone worth his weight in ideas! Instead, he persists in devaluing himself through his tactics.

What I "wanted" is to have him as a valuable adversary! What I always seem to get is him as an enemy -- yes, I know: it goes both ways. What I "wanted" has absolutely nothing to do with Jeff. I think Harris is a nonfactor in almost everything these days. . . except the fevered imaginations of a few here.

But what eric has not acknowledged is the content and thrust of private messages between us, in which I tried to get him to understand what I've said here. Instead, I've been characterized (and demonized) as a "scorpion" and an "asshole". I do not feel that he has been honest or responsive in this incident, while he seems to have done his level best to foment hatred. Even when I responded to Pauken's post, he had to come immediately behind me with a comment which misrepresented my position -- and he knew it.

By the way, Elysian, did you make it to the Grand on Sunday?