>
> For the sake of the readers' time, I am re-listing three paragraphs from my previous posts which summarize my intent in posting here. For claritys' sake, I'll
> label them A,B,C.
>
>
>>A. ...Friedman clearly acknowledges his humble beginnings in this business
>>as a student of Len Ragozin. That whole piece is glaringly absent over
>>here. The absence of that humility, honesty and integrity is the substance
>>of my objections here, many of my posts over there...
>>
>> B. I don't know if this will stay up or not. But, if it does, I ask that
>> you, as readers, please make your best objective attempt to glean the
>> essence of what I am saying here, then see if TGJB responds in a way which
>> shows that he acknowledges an understanding of what I have said(I don't
>> expect any agreement from him, just enough of a response to show the
>> capacity for acknowledgement of anothers' point of view).
>>
>>C. In any event, I don't suppose continuing this serves any purpose for
>>either of us. For the record, personal attacks/name calling(as you've
>>displayed here), the absence of acknowledgement of anothers' point of view,
>>and the intellectual integrity issue of "taking false credit" are the
>>essence of my objections. So far, my doubts are not assuaged, but I do
>>appreciate the "airing."
>>
>> JB's responses, despite my additional posts to clarify my questions:
>>
>>
>> "1-- Yes, they were personal comments, negative ones. Following weeks of
>> much harsher ones against me-- go back and look at the original string on
>> the Ragozin board about the lawsuit, and others that followed. I didn't
>> see you making the point then, there, that anyone was out of line to make
>> those comments, and in fact you were one of the ones doing it. My comments
>> yesterday were a REPLY to personal attacks by you and others. And you have
>> quite a pair making it look like I'm the aggressor."
>>
>> Here's how JB's response numbered "1." sounds to me.
>
> Somebody insulted me, so I'm going to
>> start name-calling right back. Also, his post suggests that I somehow owe
>> him some protection/defense against other posters? Maybe there's some
>> unspoken rule on these boards of which I'm unaware? Besides, if he
>> responds to others like he did all day Sunday to me, defending him would be a
>> full-time job.
>>
>> "And you have quite a pair making it look like I'm the aggressor. "
>>
>> Please, JB, stop trying to mis-direct this communication. There is
>> NOTHING suggesting or implying anything of the sort in any of my posts.
>> You tend to manufacture insults against yourself, then respond to your
>> manufactured insults. You are entitled to manufacture as many insults
>> against yourself as you would like, but why use it to muddy the waters of
>> the issues in my posts?
>
> JB's response numbered "2."
>
> " 2-- You don't get it. I have acknowledged I started with Ragozin, ..."
>
> So far, I've gotten JB to ACKNOWLEDGE he worked for Ragozin. Of course, we all knew that already. The rest of the response goes off about,
> "somebody(Merjos) told me something bad about Ragozin, and there is this
> Donaldson book from the 30's, and Ragozin is calling himself the Father of
> Speed Figures and I wish he wouldn't, blah, blah, blah." Ever ask someone
> for the "time", and get the "how to make a watch, and why do we worry so
> much about time in this country" response?
>
> JB's response numbered "3."
>
> "3-- As far as the acknowledging thing goes-- you have seen some in the
> other direction? Point me to it. "
>
> Well folks, here we are, 3 days later, all these posts, and this is what I
> get. JB is essentially saying, "I'm not ACKNOWLEDGING until 'they' do
> first. Is it just coincidence that number 3 has that same childish flavor
> that number 1 had? Unfortunately, the more serious question remains of whether he has the capacity to acknowledge. I believe he does, I just don't know why he omits that critical step in communcation.
>
> JB's parting shot:
>
> "So in trying to make me (and Jimbo) out to be the aggressors, you are way
> out of line. "
>
> Again, I get this manufactured charge, which draws Jimbo into it this time.
> This is apparently what he wants this series of posts to be about?
>
> In summary, JB has decreased the name-calling in his
> final post, but, as predicted, has been unable to ACKNOWLEDGE any of the relevant issues I raise, certainly not the primary one of "taking false credit."(those are his words). I thought that since I had taken some jabs at him on the other board, I owed it to him(and you as readers of this board) to come over here and state what prompts my posts. As you and I know, ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of anothers' point of view is the basis for ALL interpersonal communication, regardless of the medium. Without ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, interpersonal communication quickly degenerates into personal attacks. It's predictable, as you have seen here in JB's responses(incidentally, that is exactly what I said to him in my e-mails to him last December).
>