Comment Re:Consider the source (Score 1) 668
Methinks, thou dost protest too much. But seriously...
To say "...merely to point out who the guy is..." Not true. If so, you would not have chosen a subject line of "Consider the source".
And that would not have been followed by "...who the hell is he? What does he know about anything? Why should we listen to him? Oh, wait. Nobel prize for Physics 1979 THAT Steven Weinberg." I have to insist that whether you meant it or not...you post came off that way.
Perhaps you just choose your words poorly (not to be offensive, we all do it...it is no small task to get ones point across in such a forum...) or maybe we are just on a different frequency...but you original post sure seemed to IMPLY what I outlined in my reply.
As for my "think" suggestion, you are correct, that was uncalled for and I am sorry. I do apologize. (The laziness comment was not very nice either...)
To say "...merely to point out who the guy is..." Not true. If so, you would not have chosen a subject line of "Consider the source".
And that would not have been followed by "...who the hell is he? What does he know about anything? Why should we listen to him? Oh, wait. Nobel prize for Physics 1979 THAT Steven Weinberg." I have to insist that whether you meant it or not...you post came off that way.
Perhaps you just choose your words poorly (not to be offensive, we all do it...it is no small task to get ones point across in such a forum...) or maybe we are just on a different frequency...but you original post sure seemed to IMPLY what I outlined in my reply.
As for my "think" suggestion, you are correct, that was uncalled for and I am sorry. I do apologize. (The laziness comment was not very nice either...)
