Quote:
Originally posted by baltassoc
I have posted about 10 posts on the subject, most of them clumped around a half hour period, and mostly in response to a particularly asinine postition you insisted on defending. As it was a holiday weekend, I choose to believe you were simply drunk.
This morning, I linked to two documents that seem to be relevant to a discussion of interest to the board, but not particularly to me (i.e. who was more negligent in the early stages of responding to the disaster).
To the extent I have energy to discuss the topic at all, I am much more interested in ongoing, current incompetence (the subject of my multiple posts with you Sunday).
|
I don't recall one thing you've said on this board, let alone this topic. To be respected on either board one must make one's bones. You can't just start posting a lot and assume you're making sense, or arguing well. The only person who could possibly show up and have immediate credibilty would be my wife. But that is becuase she's proven herself here, and Paigow/SS would flatter her to try and co-opt her talents. The mere fact that she has sex with a well-respected poster would not give her credibilty, in an of itself (please pass on softball- "your wife screws not bob?" harhar).
Quote:
|
I have nothing more to say on the topic for now.
|
Most of us had reached the conclusion that you've never had anything to say on topic.
Quote:
Except that people who don't give money to the Red Cross are chumps.
(Again, with a few exceptions who have disclosed themselves to me directly, I have no idea who has given what. Hank may be cool. Or he may be a chump. I'll leave that to the board to decide.)
|
Your grandstanding about an idea that someone else created is vile. I'm sure the lack of acknowledgements or disclosures to you are quite low due to the grandstanding. Anyone remember Ironweed "shaking the trees" this way?
