Re: Beware of high tech running amok

In article
<b38a2dbd-10aa-4f9b-b269-a56b58ebbe51@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Ed
Pirrero wrote:
> On Feb 28, 1:05 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Brent P)
> wrote:
>> In article
<e4cbb603-992b-43ab-a1a3-77ae8bf36...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Ed
Pirrero wrote:
>> > On Feb 27, 7:46 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Brent P)
>> > wrote:
>> >> In article
<85e5c17b-6bc0-4ebb-a354-18ef3419a...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Ed
Pirrero wrote:
>> >> > But seriously.  I mean, really - I'm giving the straight dope on
why
>> >> > you seem to get so little respect, even from long-timers.  Even
Nate
>> >> > admits that you have a certain attitude.
>> >> > I suppose that once you grow up and stop blaming others for your
>> >> > shortcomings, you may actually be able to address how folks who
should
>> >> > nominally be your allies reject your spewing a significant
fraction of
>> >> > the time.
>>
>> >> I'm not blaming anyone else Ed.
>>
>> > Sure you are.  You said I was "enabling" it - here's a newsflash,
>> > smart guy - *you* are the guy in control of what you post.  Your long
>> > OT diatribes are your responsibility, 100%.  Only a little kid blames
>> > others for his/her own choices.  Grow up, Brent.
>>
>> I didn't say I wasn't in control of what I post.
> 
> Sure you did.  On two occasions in this very thread.  And several
> other veiled "I wouldn't post so much off-topic junk if you [insert
> behavior you can't control here]."
> 
> *You* are in control of what you post.  Blaming others is childish.
> 
> "You made me do it!"
> 
> LOL.

You have better reading comprehension than that. 

Logically Ed, if I didn't have you to reply to, would the 'noise' as you 
call it that I post increase or decrease? Think about it. You don't make 
me do anything, you create the opertunity and I _choose_ to take it 
because you complain about it. Duh.