I too wish to not belabor the point. It is true that like beauty, interpretation is "in the eye of the beholder". I accept the responsibility that if I want to be understood in a certain manner, the ultimate responsibility is on my shoulders to make sure that I articulate in such a way as to ensure that outcome. My mistake was in assuming that I had purchased a certain literary license for myself by stating my lack of qualifications up front, and that I could be more lax in my presentation than it turns out was acceptable. I appreciate your candor and your comments.
Well - I can assure you there are a large number of people like me in that respect. One of the problems with anything that we don't really follow or stay abreast of is that the things we hear, or read, or encounter tend to stick with us and often times at the peril of having been proven to be wrong a long time ago. For those of us that don't stay abreast of this stuff, we often don't even know what has been proven to be wrong, false, etc. So... we bring up what we do "know". It's not in attempt to impress a fact, it's in attempt to be part of the conversation. Though it's only at a layman level, there is within most of us a desire to pick up a little something as we participate in these types of things.
Having said all of that - just what is the purpose of your comment Doug? I had just acknowledged that I had poorly articulated my thoughts, apologized and tried to explain (briefly) that my real intent was far different from that which I had apparently caused some to believe. You chime in with your comment which to be frank is pure bullshit. The implication in your statement is that there is a problem in being poorly informed on a matter. I suggest you leave yourself open to a large amount of ridicule if that's your position on things.
Mike, The problem here is that you stated things you think as if you knew them. And there have been so many posts in these threads it is impossible to keep track of an individual person's bona fides. So I suggest, not just to you, that statements of knowledge should include references to someone who does know, and that opinions should follow words like "I think ..." or "IMO" or such. It will make it easier to follow.
And I'm supposed to feel *better* now that you tell me that? Just because "a large number of people" believe something does *not* make it true.
Then perhaps you should stay out of the debates? Certainly, if you insist on joining in under those circumstances, you should not be surprised when you are told that what you think you know... ain't so.
Perhaps you should consider the wisdom of making comments on subjects on which you *know* you are uninformed.
Incorrect. The message is that there is a problem with speaking publicly on subjects about which you are poorly informed.
I'm comfortable with that... Are you comfortable with the ridicule you risk inviting by asserting that man and dinosaurs coexisted based on the "evidence" of cave paintings allegedly depicting dinos? I notice you still haven't answered my challenge of a couple days ago to cite just *one* instance of a cave painting that clearly depicts something unambiguously recognizable as a dinosaur, that has *not* been shown to be a modern fake.
Doug - you're making an ass of yourself barking because you heard the howling in the woods.
Irrelevant. Feel as you will.
You clearly have no clue what you're braying about now Doug. It would behoove you to read what was posted before jumping off on a rant.
Perhaps you should read posts before you attempt to so soundly put another in their place. You need the practice.
Yawn.
You are making a fool of yourself Doug. I've acknowledged this stuff enough times and there's no point in doing so further just to satisfy your ego. I'm oh-so sorry if you feel left out because I did not humble myself before your obvious greater wisdom, but you just don't mean that much to me Doug. Take your self serving attitude and place it where... well, you know the rest.
Look - we've had decent enough conversations in this group in the past and there's probably no reason not to anticipate that going forward. You've elected though to jump on something that has been acknowledged and explained and which is not as you portray it. Get over it. It may come as a shock to you, but there are things in the world that are not as they appear to you. Clearly, I caused more than just you to take my comments the wrong way and I've stepped up to that. It's your turn now - I've set the record straight on the matter. Either accept it or not, but at this point any furtherance of this discussion is nothing more than a reflection of your insistence.
On 10/12/2005 1:18 PM Mike Marlow mumbled something about the following:
Mike, If you THINK you know something, DAGS and find out before you post. This is the easiest way from getting slammed. At least then, you have something to back what you think you know, although there is still a good chance it's wrong.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.