Re: Beware of high tech running amok

On Feb 27, 4:05=A0pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article
<34b87ba9-c84f-4a0d-a38e-856539135...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > On Feb 27, 7:02=A0am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Brent P)
> > wrote:
> >> In article <rbsas356ecr4p71ih7jcn8j061bhkfc...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Scott in
SoCal=
 wrote:
>
> >> How many times
> >> have I made something up out of the blue scott? ZERO. Ya think there
> >> would be just a little respect.
> > LOL. =A0That's reason you don't get respect. =A0If the conclusions you
> > reached made sense from the data you presented, you *would* get
> > respect.
>
> You mean like...[snipped argumentative crap]

Yeah, just like that.  Or whatever.  Obviously you never have thought
about it much.

The fact that you happen to hit on a few true facts every now and then
isn't surprising.  Hell, anyone with as much free time as you seem to
have might find some nuggets of truth.  Just from the sheer volume of
crap you spew out, some good must come.  Sorta like fertilizer, I
guess.

Instead of knee-jerk defensive sermonizing, why not examine the why of
why you seem to get so little respect.  Even when you do actually
present true facts.

E.P.