No, I just find playing a simple "battle of links", with no abstract, a bit
tedious and basically lazy on the part of the naked-link poster.


Why the hell would I want to retype the thing when all you have to do
is click once and get the whole thing? And a quick glance at the link
and context should tell you what the thing is going to be about
anyway. If you want to talk laziness "too hard to click on a link"
takes the cake.





Now look
here, paisan--I have tried to be reasonably nice to you, to include
acknowledging that I did misinterpret some of your earlier postings in this
thread and apologizing for same. Why don't you make the same effort towards
civility that I have?


I was. The part that gets irritating is when you go off on some
tangent simply because you didn't bother to read what was written in
the first place. Everybody goofs up sometimes so I cut you some slack
when you went off on the anti-ICBM tangent. Then you turn right
around and go off on the "three or four times the range" tangent and I
have to go and RE-iterrate what I've already written simply because
you didn't take the time to catch it the first time around. Get's old
after a while.





Just on this thread there have been
numerous times in which you have missed what has been written or saw a
big paragraph so didn't read it at all. And it shows. My point in
providing those links (if you've read this far) is to enlighten you on
the BPI issue. Where's the harm in going to the link and reading? It
can only help you have a better undertanding of a subject you
apparently take an interest in.

OK, enough is enough. You got an apology, so what the hell else you want is
beyond me.

I'd be happy if you'd just read the post before haring off on some
tangent. Is that too much to ask?





I suggest you read Orvil's post and take heed--he apparently
knows quite a bit more about this than either you or some AvLeak writer (and
more than me as well). You'll note that his conclusions are generally in
linne with what I have been telling you. If you want to conduct further
discussion of topics, be energetic enough to at least indicate what your
links are saying and provide them "for further reference", and get off your
high horse, OK?

Not on a high horse. I wouldn't expect anybody to write a synopsis of
a link (that's WHY they provided a link). Most people read faster
than they type and I'd rather just click on the link than read a
synopsis and STILL click on the link. If you're too good to click on
a link then by all means continue on in ignorance.