Rick, if you saw my original replies to *your* posts and then
saw the edited snippets you decided to show, I don't think you
would have any problem *understanding* why i was upset. I
replied directly to *your* posts questioning *your* views. if
you do not want to deal with me or the issues I bring up to
*you*, fine. My posts to *your statements* were not intended for
the *group* to answer , they were directed at you.
You very well might be a PCT guru, and others might see you as
a very personable fellow, I am very disappointed to see the need
you have to distort.
Fellow CSG 'ers, Have you seen the post ?
Am I Off Base ? If I am, I will be the first to apologize for my
conduct and take a good long hard luck at why I reacted this
way. I plan on doing this anyway :-).
Tom Bourbon [950213,1416]
Re: Marc Abrams' message of sunday, 12 Feb 95, 23:XX
Marc, it would really help people keep track of your messages if you were to
use the date-time convention we have adopted on csg-l.
. . .
You very well might be a PCT guru, and others might see you as
a very personable fellow, I am very disappointed to see the need
you have to distort.
Marc, I've just been catching up on this exchange and I'm afraid I don't
see what you mean.
Fellow CSG 'ers, Have you seen the post ?
Marc, after looking at your messages to Rick, I can't be sure if I qualify
as one of your fellows, but I have seen the post. 
Am I Off Base ? If I am, I will be the first to apologize for my
conduct and take a good long hard luck at why I reacted this
way. I plan on doing this anyway :-).
That might be a good idea, Marc. On the net, many of us say things we later
think were a little rash. It is an insight that often comes after we have
gone up a level or two and recognized what we were doing earlier.
Later,
Tom
