And you, Unca Douggie, you shut yer fucking yap too...

...until you've posted some links to that "shit-storm" you oh-so-confidently predicted would follow hard on the heels of the publication of that book of totally insignificant non-news about the Chinese having circumnavigated the globe before anyone else and -- as usual -- done NOTHING of any consequence as a result of their first.(*)

How long has it been now; eight weeks? Twelve? Or even more? One would think the evidence would be easy enough for even you to find, by now -- if it actually existed.

If, OTOH (and as I suspect), the absence of any such posts from you is due to the actual and total absence of any such evidence -- the total absence, actually, of any such "shit-storm" -- you could demonstrate a totally uncharacteristic degree of back-bone by explicitly fessing up to that fact.

Not that I'm holding my breath, considering how you express your admiration for "Lincoln"'s cowardly gutter-sniping "style", talking crap about one person in replies ostensibly to others... And not that I'm too surprised at that admiration either, considering that "his" -- the new Über-hypocrite's, having narrowly beat you to the title this year -- "style" was actually pioneered here by YOU, Unca Douggie!

But wait, what's that smell...? Oh, yes: So isn't your admiration of "his" (TNÜH's) "style" just a whiff too self-congratulary, then?

(*): What, do you find anything wrong with that condensed version? So what would it boil down to, in *your* single-sentence summation of the contents, as described in several posts by you back who-remembers-when?

Christian,

I am not going to engage in any 'face-to-face' abuse screaming match with you. It is perfectly clear that there are no winners nor does any good emerge from it. If anything, it just adds to a growing pool of ill will and hostility.

I have always been and remain willing to discuss with you any interpersonal issues, and mutually percieved affronts between us, but *only* in a sensible & productive manner. I haven't seen *any* sign to date that this has been possible.

It doesn't take much IQ to know that resolving disagreements requires mature 'rules of engagement' (rather than imature 'rules on enragement'). The moment either of us employs tactics to dodge from the issue being discussed we are sabotaging any attempt to resolve what for us are clearly festering resentments. Diversionary tactics include introducing abuse, trying to switch from a losing issue before it is resolved to one that might score more points or throw the other person off balance.

The moment either of us resorts to deeply emotional language (such as: *yelling* abuse, personal attacks, biting sarcasm) then it is clear that there is no mutual will to resolve the matter at hand.

Rules of engagement (open to negotiation).
===================

1. We first each agree on an issue we want the other person to respond to. Then deal with *just* that issue.

2. We agree that if in the course of discussion, either of us switches out of adult ego state (into abusive parent ego state or screaming child ego state), the conversation ends then & there and we let the rot continue.

3. No foul or abusive language to be used to manipulate the conversation.

If you are sincere about resolving your annoyances (and me mine) - we can perhaps make some progress.

Doug Marker

Welcome to IWETHEY!