 |

|
|
|
|
#576381 - 08/19/10 02:08 PM
Re: Q for JB
[Re: Allen Montgomery]
|
Member
Registered: 07/22/01
Posts: 4593
Loc: Sparks, Nevada, United States
|
From a bunch of detractors? Yup. You also am from Bizarro World. Aaand... my point. Exists only on Bizarro World.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#576382 - 08/19/10 02:12 PM
Re: Q for JB
[Re: Ceci n'est pas une chaussette]
|
Member
Registered: 07/22/01
Posts: 4593
Loc: Sparks, Nevada, United States
|
Nothing is as black & white as you so want it to be. In other words, detractors like to think certain things are only in black & white & cannot possible be any other color. Only if everything is painted in black & white. Keep on shouting your latest catchphrase Oh, Paul. But guys, let's try to see this from Paul's point of view. And cut! As predicted, you cater to an audience of fellow detractors & set up your own little padded scenarios that can only possibly lead to one conclusion. In other words, it's either black or white. Thanks for proving my point...again.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#576383 - 08/19/10 02:20 PM
Re: Q for JB
[Re: Ceci n'est pas une chaussette]
|
Member
Registered: 07/22/01
Posts: 4593
Loc: Sparks, Nevada, United States
|
Paul's statement was not a statement of personal morality, though. He didn't say, "I think that if you weigh up the good and the bad in Byrne's life, it errs on the side of good."* He said that he did not accept that Byrne's actions could have been as bad as described because Byrne has also done good things. Wow! This kind of logic explains a great deal about why you will continue to fail with your whacked out meanderings. I never said any such thing in the manner in which you have just presented it & I never would. This is just your interpretation and it is a very, very wrong interpretation at that.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#576384 - 08/19/10 02:31 PM
Re: Q for JB
[Re: Paul W. Sondersted, Jr.]
|
Member
Registered: 12/19/05
Posts: 2822
|
And cut! As predicted, you cater to an audience of fellow detractors & set up your own little padded scenarios that can only possibly lead to one conclusion. I'm sorry that the things you say only lead people to one conclusion about you, Paul. That must be rough. Have you considered changing your approach? Maybe you'll get better results. He said that he did not accept that Byrne's actions could have been as bad as described because Byrne has also done good things. I never said any such thing in the manner in which you have just presented it & I never would. Here's you saying it: I find cause to remain skeptical about the LEVEL of the experience(s) only because of the many MORE positive experiences that have been accounted by others.
_________________________
"When one says 'Africa,' it refers to Africa in the Euro-colonized sense, not the damn bush country or whatever." - Ed Gauthier, DCP
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#576385 - 08/19/10 04:46 PM
Re: Q for JB
[Re: Paul W. Sondersted, Jr.]
|
Member
Registered: 10/31/03
Posts: 1338
Loc: Airdrie, Scotland
|
Paul's statement was not a statement of personal morality, though. He didn't say, "I think that if you weigh up the good and the bad in Byrne's life, it errs on the side of good."* He said that he did not accept that Byrne's actions could have been as bad as described because Byrne has also done good things. Wow! This kind of logic explains a great deal about why you will continue to fail with your whacked out meanderings. I never said any such thing in the manner in which you have just presented it & I never would. This is just your interpretation and it is a very, very wrong interpretation at that. No, Paul, it is a very accurate interpretation of what you do. You rarely if ever argue the point but rather dismiss our reasoning as either an exaggeration or is being made in bad faith. Just try to imagine that we may have a point and that you might be wrong. It can be quite liberating.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#576386 - 08/19/10 05:49 PM
Re: Q for JB
[Re: Ceci n'est pas une chaussette]
|
Member
Registered: 12/13/01
Posts: 1859
Loc: Penfield, Ny USA
|
"has there been a noticeable/measurable change in JB's behavior since thread like this have started?"
There's nothing that could be documented as measurable, but I'd like to think that when he draws his next clark kent that it won't be Jack Sprat-style.
_________________________
"God you are a Genius Budman." --Alexander Ness "I know." --Budman
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#576387 - 08/19/10 06:48 PM
Re: Q for JB
[Re: Paul W. Sondersted, Jr.]
|
Member
Registered: 05/08/00
Posts: 6909
|
Exists only on Bizarro World. Is this your new catch phrase? You're getting quite a collection.
_________________________
"The trouble with being a ghost writer or artist is that you must remain anonymous without credit. If one wants the credit, one has to cease being a ghost and become a leader or innovator." — Bob Kane
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#576388 - 08/19/10 06:52 PM
Re: Q for JB
[Re: Paul W. Sondersted, Jr.]
|
Member
Registered: 05/08/00
Posts: 6909
|
Besides being another catch phrase, why cut? The rest of that post (which you so conveniently edited out) actually makes a pretty succinct point which I'd like to see you address.
_________________________
"The trouble with being a ghost writer or artist is that you must remain anonymous without credit. If one wants the credit, one has to cease being a ghost and become a leader or innovator." — Bob Kane
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#576391 - 08/19/10 08:03 PM
Re: Q for JB
[Re: Ceci n'est pas une chaussette]
|
Member
Registered: 07/22/01
Posts: 4593
Loc: Sparks, Nevada, United States
|
And cut! As predicted, you cater to an audience of fellow detractors & set up your own little padded scenarios that can only possibly lead to one conclusion. I'm sorry that the things you say only lead people to one conclusion about you, Paul. That must be rough. Quite the opposite actually, which is why you & most detractors remain so predictable. Have you considered changing your approach? Maybe you'll get better results. When the exaggerations stop, then I will change my approach. He said that he did not accept that Byrne's actions could have been as bad as described because Byrne has also done good things. I never said any such thing in the manner in which you have just presented it & I never would. Here's you saying it: I find cause to remain skeptical about the LEVEL of the experience(s) only because of the many MORE positive experiences that have been accounted by others. Thanks. Skepticism raises doubt, but does not necessarily disagree. As I've stated in the past, it's not usually the stories that I disagree with, but the exaggeration perpetrated by a few detractors...but you know that.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#576392 - 08/19/10 08:11 PM
Re: Q for JB
[Re: shjonescrk]
|
Member
Registered: 07/22/01
Posts: 4593
Loc: Sparks, Nevada, United States
|
Paul's statement was not a statement of personal morality, though. He didn't say, "I think that if you weigh up the good and the bad in Byrne's life, it errs on the side of good."* He said that he did not accept that Byrne's actions could have been as bad as described because Byrne has also done good things. Wow! This kind of logic explains a great deal about why you will continue to fail with your whacked out meanderings. I never said any such thing in the manner in which you have just presented it & I never would. This is just your interpretation and it is a very, very wrong interpretation at that. No, Paul, it is a very accurate interpretation of what you do. You rarely if ever argue the point but rather dismiss our reasoning as either an exaggeration or is being made in bad faith. As shown above Ceci interpreted incorrectly (as did you & I imagine a few others who latch onto these wacky theories that usually turn out to be incorrect), as is usual when a detractor is in a virtual hurry to be right, when they have in fact proven themselves to be infallibly wrong in their exaggerated fashion. Just try to imagine that we may have a point and that you might be wrong. It can be quite liberating. Turn the tables & liberate yourself first. I've admitted in the past that things could turn out that I may have misunderstood something or misinterpreted certain things & I usually admit when I'm PROVEN wrong. Theories, innuendos & exaggerated tactics do NOT a fact make.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |