[Allan from Fallbrook]

TemekuT: Well said. Rapier? I like it. Fits our rather swashbuckling crew, don’t you think?

For some reason, I now have the accounting pirates of The Crimson Permanent Assurance (Monty Python’s “Meaning of Life”) stuck in my head. It is getting late and the hamster has clearly jumped clear of the wheel!

[Allan from Fallbrook]

TemekuT: Well said. Rapier? I like it. Fits our rather swashbuckling crew, don’t you think?

For some reason, I now have the accounting pirates of The Crimson Permanent Assurance (Monty Python’s “Meaning of Life”) stuck in my head. It is getting late and the hamster has clearly jumped clear of the wheel!

[Allan from Fallbrook]

TemekuT: Well said. Rapier? I like it. Fits our rather swashbuckling crew, don’t you think?

For some reason, I now have the accounting pirates of The Crimson Permanent Assurance (Monty Python’s “Meaning of Life”) stuck in my head. It is getting late and the hamster has clearly jumped clear of the wheel!

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: I’d have to go with Option #3, which is not to respond at all. If you do choose to respond, you have to follow the rules of the road and accord luchabee the same courtesy he should show you.

Fair is fair, amigo. I think it’s safe to say that you and I are on opposite sides of the aisle, politically speaking, and yet we haven’t exchanged a single profanity or ad hominem between us. And I know we both feel very strongly about our respective positions, so it is possible to conduct a respectful dialogue and argument (in the pure sense of the term) without resorting to mud slinging or name calling.

As a Catholic, I strongly disagree with luchabee’s positions, but he has asserted them and he continues to argue them in the face of strong opposition. I also strongly disagree with larrylujack, who seems to think all of us spiritual types are blithering idiots and incapable of formulating a thought, let alone a coherent sentence.

You stake out your position and argue your points and see who is standing when the dust settles. Then go have a beer or some nice Bogel vino (good choice, BTW).

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: I’d have to go with Option #3, which is not to respond at all. If you do choose to respond, you have to follow the rules of the road and accord luchabee the same courtesy he should show you.

Fair is fair, amigo. I think it’s safe to say that you and I are on opposite sides of the aisle, politically speaking, and yet we haven’t exchanged a single profanity or ad hominem between us. And I know we both feel very strongly about our respective positions, so it is possible to conduct a respectful dialogue and argument (in the pure sense of the term) without resorting to mud slinging or name calling.

As a Catholic, I strongly disagree with luchabee’s positions, but he has asserted them and he continues to argue them in the face of strong opposition. I also strongly disagree with larrylujack, who seems to think all of us spiritual types are blithering idiots and incapable of formulating a thought, let alone a coherent sentence.

You stake out your position and argue your points and see who is standing when the dust settles. Then go have a beer or some nice Bogel vino (good choice, BTW).

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: I’d have to go with Option #3, which is not to respond at all. If you do choose to respond, you have to follow the rules of the road and accord luchabee the same courtesy he should show you.

Fair is fair, amigo. I think it’s safe to say that you and I are on opposite sides of the aisle, politically speaking, and yet we haven’t exchanged a single profanity or ad hominem between us. And I know we both feel very strongly about our respective positions, so it is possible to conduct a respectful dialogue and argument (in the pure sense of the term) without resorting to mud slinging or name calling.

As a Catholic, I strongly disagree with luchabee’s positions, but he has asserted them and he continues to argue them in the face of strong opposition. I also strongly disagree with larrylujack, who seems to think all of us spiritual types are blithering idiots and incapable of formulating a thought, let alone a coherent sentence.

You stake out your position and argue your points and see who is standing when the dust settles. Then go have a beer or some nice Bogel vino (good choice, BTW).

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: I’d have to go with Option #3, which is not to respond at all. If you do choose to respond, you have to follow the rules of the road and accord luchabee the same courtesy he should show you.

Fair is fair, amigo. I think it’s safe to say that you and I are on opposite sides of the aisle, politically speaking, and yet we haven’t exchanged a single profanity or ad hominem between us. And I know we both feel very strongly about our respective positions, so it is possible to conduct a respectful dialogue and argument (in the pure sense of the term) without resorting to mud slinging or name calling.

As a Catholic, I strongly disagree with luchabee’s positions, but he has asserted them and he continues to argue them in the face of strong opposition. I also strongly disagree with larrylujack, who seems to think all of us spiritual types are blithering idiots and incapable of formulating a thought, let alone a coherent sentence.

You stake out your position and argue your points and see who is standing when the dust settles. Then go have a beer or some nice Bogel vino (good choice, BTW).

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: I’d have to go with Option #3, which is not to respond at all. If you do choose to respond, you have to follow the rules of the road and accord luchabee the same courtesy he should show you.

Fair is fair, amigo. I think it’s safe to say that you and I are on opposite sides of the aisle, politically speaking, and yet we haven’t exchanged a single profanity or ad hominem between us. And I know we both feel very strongly about our respective positions, so it is possible to conduct a respectful dialogue and argument (in the pure sense of the term) without resorting to mud slinging or name calling.

As a Catholic, I strongly disagree with luchabee’s positions, but he has asserted them and he continues to argue them in the face of strong opposition. I also strongly disagree with larrylujack, who seems to think all of us spiritual types are blithering idiots and incapable of formulating a thought, let alone a coherent sentence.

You stake out your position and argue your points and see who is standing when the dust settles. Then go have a beer or some nice Bogel vino (good choice, BTW).

[Allan from Fallbrook]

TemekuT: I know it’s easy to lose one’s temper, and there have been a couple of times I really wanted to pop off and say something personal, but we can’t talk about raising the quality of the dialogue and then revert to cursing.

We’re supposed to be and should be better than that. Might sound self-righteous, but there it is.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

TemekuT: I know it’s easy to lose one’s temper, and there have been a couple of times I really wanted to pop off and say something personal, but we can’t talk about raising the quality of the dialogue and then revert to cursing.

We’re supposed to be and should be better than that. Might sound self-righteous, but there it is.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

TemekuT: I know it’s easy to lose one’s temper, and there have been a couple of times I really wanted to pop off and say something personal, but we can’t talk about raising the quality of the dialogue and then revert to cursing.

We’re supposed to be and should be better than that. Might sound self-righteous, but there it is.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

TemekuT: I know it’s easy to lose one’s temper, and there have been a couple of times I really wanted to pop off and say something personal, but we can’t talk about raising the quality of the dialogue and then revert to cursing.

We’re supposed to be and should be better than that. Might sound self-righteous, but there it is.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

TemekuT: I know it’s easy to lose one’s temper, and there have been a couple of times I really wanted to pop off and say something personal, but we can’t talk about raising the quality of the dialogue and then revert to cursing.

We’re supposed to be and should be better than that. Might sound self-righteous, but there it is.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

TemekuT: Yup. My point exactly. One can disagree and strongly, without resorting to ad hominem.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

TemekuT: Yup. My point exactly. One can disagree and strongly, without resorting to ad hominem.

[Author]

Posts