NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re:
From: Peter Fogg
Date: 2007 Oct 7, 06:57 +1000
From: Peter Fogg
Date: 2007 Oct 7, 06:57 +1000
According to George:
Does this mean that, according to George, negative character assessments of participants are perceived within this gentlemanly club as being somewhat beyond the pale? This would seem to be what you are trying to say, in your usual long-winded and pompous way.
However, when this list needed a new platform and a new moderator, you took it upon yourself to pronounce Frank's "character" as being unfit for the task!
What a bald-faced hypocrite !!
I'm happy to be able to say that you have been proved to be entirely wrong. Frank has turned out to be an excellent custodian of our discussions, despite being an active participant in many of them himself.
Well, that's a response, George. I note that it fails to address the arguments put, and instead takes unsteady aim at the messenger.
You don't deign to respond, I have noticed, when you are presented with a good argument. On this and on many other occasions. The inevitable conclusion is that you cannot, and thus slink off in silence to lick your wounds. Whatever, says me. To each his own "character".
However, it is infuriating when months or years later you pop up again with, for example, the same carefully contrived 'error' to cackle and crow about. Your creative genius at work. Such as it is.
You are the problem, George. You are not the solution. Your behaviour comes across as personally vindictive and spiteful. And dishonest.
As you say, nearly all the time discussions here are "civilised and gentlemanly". I would imagine that we all "like it that way". If the present discussion has descended into "personal abuse" and negative "character" assessment, you really need to take a good hard look into the mirror for the nub of the problem.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to NavList@fer3.com
To , send email to NavList-@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
But there's another facet to this business; a more serious matter, in my
view. Frank accepts some sort of responsibility as the custodian of this
list. In general, the discussions are civilised and gentlemanly. I like it
that way, and so, I think, do others, who manage to maintain those
standards.
Does this mean that, according to George, negative character assessments of participants are perceived within this gentlemanly club as being somewhat beyond the pale? This would seem to be what you are trying to say, in your usual long-winded and pompous way.
However, when this list needed a new platform and a new moderator, you took it upon yourself to pronounce Frank's "character" as being unfit for the task!
I have no "religious" objections to the new list, though I have expressed myAs if you'd know! As if its any business of yours to decide! Particularly when you were invited to become the moderator of the old list yourself, and declined. Perhaps you decided that your "character" was not composed of the right stuff?
doubts as to whether Frank, for all his energy and
initiative, is the right character for its stewardship
http://www.fer3.com/arc/m2.aspx?i=028988&y=200605
What a bald-faced hypocrite !!
I'm happy to be able to say that you have been proved to be entirely wrong. Frank has turned out to be an excellent custodian of our discussions, despite being an active participant in many of them himself.
Peter Fogg complains that I do not respond to his postings, and indeed I
would not dignify the stuff he has been spitting out with a response of any
kind. However, if he can manage to control his choler and put his arguments
and questions in factual terms, without the insults, then I will do my best
to help him.
Well, that's a response, George. I note that it fails to address the arguments put, and instead takes unsteady aim at the messenger.
You don't deign to respond, I have noticed, when you are presented with a good argument. On this and on many other occasions. The inevitable conclusion is that you cannot, and thus slink off in silence to lick your wounds. Whatever, says me. To each his own "character".
However, it is infuriating when months or years later you pop up again with, for example, the same carefully contrived 'error' to cackle and crow about. Your creative genius at work. Such as it is.
You are the problem, George. You are not the solution. Your behaviour comes across as personally vindictive and spiteful. And dishonest.
As you say, nearly all the time discussions here are "civilised and gentlemanly". I would imagine that we all "like it that way". If the present discussion has descended into "personal abuse" and negative "character" assessment, you really need to take a good hard look into the mirror for the nub of the problem.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to NavList@fer3.com
To , send email to NavList-@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---