![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Weeks Solution and Weeks Special | Mirco | Aerobatics | 0 | October 2nd 04 04:11 PM |