Text 17847, 106 rader
Skriven 2005-12-04 22:33:00 av FRANK SCHEIDT (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av BJöRN FORSSTRöM
Ärende: Control The Smoke!!!
============================
-=> Quoting Björn Forsström to Frank Scheidt <=-

 BF>> #1. Remember the discussion we had about N379P for months when you almost
 BF>> called me a liar? Good. Finally you had to give it up since the truth
 BF>> cought up with you but I never heard any real apology.
 
 FS> That's where you made your *first* mistake.  I *never* called you a liar
 FS> or "almost" a liar!  I simply questioned the quality of the information
 FS> you had received.  That's one hell of a big difference. Furthermore I gave
 FS> you my reason for *not* believing it and you rejected that entirely.

 BF> Why shouldn't I since I had seen the evidence that you rejected
 BF> entirely. 

I rejected your *news-source*, not your honesty!  Furthermore I 
explained *why* I didn't believe it.  You simply would not accept 
that, and that was because you don't know how the "news"media 
operate *here*.  Whenever they can find something undesirable 
about America they're *eager* to print it.  That's the way they 
operate!  I *know* you don't believe that so just forget it.

 FS> Then, when I *did* find out it was true I mentioned that.  As for the
 FS> "apology" why *should* I have apologized?  I said nothing which called for
 FS> an apology, after all I didn't criticize *you* I criticized your *news*
 FS> source.  Can't you see the difference?!  I *never* questioned your
 FS> *personal* sincerity.

 BF> It would have been better if you had said "Oooppsss, this was news"
 BF> and had listned before being so categorical.

I had *strong* evidence against it ... see above.  However it's 
evidence which you will *not* accept because you don't know how 
the "news"media operate here.
 
 BF>> #2. With Dan about the white cars in white snow. It was shown to me by
 BF>> Mother Nature that Dan was totally wrong but still he thinks he was right
 BF>> but I leave it to him to do some more thinking about it.
 
 FS> As you should realize *I*, too, said Dan was wrong.  It's the contrast
 FS> which matters.

 BF> And this was to him, not to you.
 
OK ...

 BF>> #3. The disussion with Roy about moose. I live in a country where we see
 BF>> moose almost whenever we want to and I also have them in my yard and
 BF>> people are actually killed on the roads after having chrashed with them
 BF>> and they are a huge problem here so who's the best to talk about moose,
 BF>> him or me?
 
 FS> I would say *you*.  I know little about the habits of moose having seen
 FS> only one in the wild in my entire life when on a fishing trip into Canada.
 FS> *Then* I thought it was a "dog".  The guide laughed and pointed out how
 FS> far away on the lake shore the moose *was* ...

 BF> Well, I've been only about 20 yards from one and I didn't see her
 BF> until it was almost too late.
 
 BF>> #4. That you and Roy are still (in this momet) bitching about me and are
 BF>> making fun of someting that isn't fun at all and that says a lot to me
 BF>> about
 
 FS> Huh?  That "don't let the smoke escape" is an old, old joke among
 FS> electronics people ... [sigh] ... it has *nothing* to do with you,
 FS> personally!

 BF> *I* didn't know that. Coming from Roy it can mean almost anything and
 BF> remember, English isn't my mother toungue.

I realize that and have *always* taken that into account.
 
 FS> I still bitch about you because of the way you acted.  You felt I was a
 FS> liar or being insincere or something like that when *neither* was true.
 FS> It was your *attitude* from the start. I've mentioned this before and you
 FS> refused to believe it.  Either that or you simply don't understand the
 FS> *concept* of "attitude". ... so be it!

 BF> Then I think we are two with an attitude problem since aparently you
 BF> don't get along with anyone outside of USA.
 BF> The way you act here is not the way you act towards your fellow
 BF> citizens in the echoes I read and I do see your name in a couple of
 BF> them. 

OK, here's the situation:  I tend to treat people as they treat 
me.  If someone is civil to me, I'm always civil to him.  If 
someone starts crabbing at me I give it right back to him -- with 
interest.  If you'll note, in those echoes the people I'm dealing 
with treat *me* civilly.  I don't mean we don't have differences 
of opinion, but that we deal with them in a *civil* manner.

And if you think I treat Americans better than foreigners 
you're *badly* mistaken.  I live in a small town.  However 
it's the headquarters of the world's largest chemical 
company (in sales) and is very cosmopolitan, having people 
from *all* over the world in its research labs (where I 
worked for three decades).  Hence I *frequently* dealt 
with people who weren't citizens, and I liked doing that 
since they tend to look at things different than we do.  
I've *always* gotten along well with them.

... Epitaph on a gravestone:  "Cheerio!  See you soon."

___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)