"shazzbat" wrote in message
...
SNIP

You've got some neck. You slag off me and others for suggesting that Bob's
post, whilst perfectly correct, could have been put more gently, and here
you are claiming that part of it which you can't even quote correctly
would
set 'anyone's' teeth on edge.

Not really, no. I'm not actually claiming that at all. (see below)

So 10 out of 10 for tact and diplomacy for you,

And 0 out of 10 for percepetiveness for you.

I don't think. No part of Bob's post set my teeth on edge,

Full marks there. Indeed it won't have set anyone's* teeth
on edge. One word , five letters, first letter "i". Or if you're
an American, seven letters, first letter "s".
* apart that is, from the exceptions detailed below.

The point was, that that was the next thing Bob was going to
be accused of, by someone or other. That was the intention of
the "clearly". That there are quite possibly lurkers out there
in cyberspace who eats nails for breakfast, who would be
the next to pipe up in direct opposition to the charges
which you have already been levelled against Bob's post.
In this case, that that introductory sentence simply wasn't
hard hitting enough. That it was much too "soft" and "fluffy"

The penny dropped yet, has it ?

....

and it's not
for you to speak for all of us.

....

I certainly wouldn't want to speak for you, or anyone else under
any circumstances.

In fact, least of all you. You can be certain of that.

....

You are beyond belief.

....

You're entitled to believe what you wish. Some people do believe
the strangest things.

....


More snippage, especially your ludicrous tirade.

....

There was no "ludicrous tirade". Just a straightforward question

So please don't think for one moment that you're simply going to
duck out of this with your head held high, as a result of failing
to see a joke.

Or perhaps that's the way you always conduct yourself in life is it?
By simply running way from things ?

You make these sniping, so-called "constructive criticisms" of yours
- not that we've actually seen any constructive suggestions of
course - from behind the safety of a hedge. And then try to run away.
- "More snippage" indeed - whenever you're called on them.

So here it is again. Part of this "ludicrous tirade" of mine, and the
question you ran away from.

How long more in your estimation will Bob need to spend in tidying up
this list of his ? To make it sound more friendly and unlikely to cause
any offence to anybody ? Another half hour perhaps, making an hour in
total. Or maybe another hour making it an hour and a half overall ?

And as matter of interest, given that you're clearly intent on offering
constructive criticism, what particular format do you think it would it
be best for Bob to adopt ? Do you think he should abandon the list
idea in the final draft and recast it into one long piece of
prose for instance ? More informal certainly, but potentially more
confusing. What do you think of that idea?

I don't really see how you can have any possible objection to
answering such simple questions. Do you? Given that, as you say,
your only intention was to offer a bit of "constructive criticism".
Because to be honest, its all been a bit negative and vague from
you up to now, I hope you'll agree.



michael adams

....











Steve