Van Gogh:

 

...unlike Van Gogh, who at least had one! Maybe that's why he never really listens to anyone else....

 

Mike, You do disappoint me, but not for the reasons you may think. You're a disappointment to your peers and your profession because of your callous and demeaning attitude. In regard to your assumption that I attended reform school, the institution that I recieved my degree from speaks for itself.

 

Dear thread,

I am sorry to disappoint, but I must leave for Michigan in the morning to help settle my father's estate and see my sick mother. I'll really miss you, Randy and Allan, during this time: you're so humorously predictable, kind of like the kid in class with the personal hygiene problem. Perhaps I'll try to dredge up this thread when I return. From Alan I hope to see a really meaningful or thoughtful reply, that addresses the issues, as opposed to gratuitous innuendo. A qualified lawyer _should be_ able to do that: and I'll respond in kind.

From Randy, I fear, we'll only see yet more scatalogical images of men. I'm sure that this is a manifestation of his deep seated ambivalance. I've privately counseled Randy to not be afraid; to "come clean" to his peers about his apparent artistic preferences. After all, I've told him, even the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology no longer classifies his sort of predilection as a disease: it's probably genetic, and definitely not a mental illness. In fact, current medical evidence supports the view that a portion of Randy's hypothalamus, and perhaps, I would hazard a coy guess, some other anatomical parts, are in fact simply much smaller than is usual for a male. This is nothing to be ashamed of, Randy... ; )

--Mike

 

Here's an image of a scatological *******:

 

Phys Ed?... or Hotel and Resort Management?

You know Randy, a polite word from you and I wouldn't insult you, either privately or publicly. But you don't seem to know how to be polite with someone with whom you disagree. Rennlist is just a discussion, and I have opinions different from yours, FWIW. Why do you choose to demean and humiliate someone you disagree with? If you'd just state--politely--that you disagree, and perhaps even deign to say why (although that is optional), I'd leave you alone and treat you with respect.

Regrets for the direction this thread has gone, Mike

 

I should have perhaps written:

"Why do you choose to demean and humiliate someone you disagree with?"...and not expect the same in return? Thee threw the first stones, and vulgar ones they were, although I think this has gone far enough. I'd appreciate if you would simply respectfully disagree with my differing opinions on certain issues; you'll find that I'll be generous and kind in return.

The same goes for Tech-Law. I'm sure he has fun with his car, as we all do. I am also fairly confident that he's law abiding, an honest and efficient officer of the court, and general stand-up guy. But I don't need or want gratiutous, ad hominem, or vulgar put-downs from anyone...and they shouldn't deserve my respect in return for such without a mutual apology.

Sincerely (as opposed to tongue-in-cheek as previously), Mike

 

Mike, ever since you first visited this board you've been neither kind nor polite. Why would you expect any courtesy in return? Example; There may be those here that majored in Phys Ed., Hotel and/or Resort Management (I am not one of them) and all you did was insult them. I remind you that Rennlist is very diverse. Why did you pay for a membership? Imo it was a waste as nobody cares to hear what you have to say. Why are you posting here? What are you trying to accomplish?

 

Randy, you're right that I came in heavy on the "110+ mph" thread, and I apologize. As I recall, I suggested that it was sociopathic to drive that way. That was excessive and perhaps unfair, to wield an (obviously not supported) clinical diagnosis over a poor layman. But on the other hand, I've never posted any picture suggesting that you or anyone else has their head in their ***, or called someone a swear word or a jerk. Also, I've tried to make my attacks as tongue in cheek (I hope) as possible. For example, I doubt that anyone expects that any part of your hypothalamus (or anything else) is abnormal.

At the same time you can't seem to let the anger go either: so you post toilet humor pictures, and I insult you with nerdy words, so then you imply I'm an academic charlatan, and in return I propose you're a Phys Ed major...ad infinitum. How about we make up, and agree to respect one another, even when we have different opinions? For example, if I propose that driving exceedingly fast or with open pipes is wrong, you can disagree with or without associated rationale or justification, but do it politely. In return, I agree not to call you either high-falutin' or vulgar names. And vice-versa. This seems fair to me.

Best, Mike

 

And if you're ever in SLC and want a glider ride (normally a $200 value) I'll be happy to give you one: gently, in the calm, early morning air that suits first timers best.

--Mike

 

The same to you Mike. If you ever want to meet me at a Raider game I'll standby while you mouth off and undoubtedly get your *** beat. Do you realize that this is the 2nd apology you've made in the last few weeks? You're pathetic.

 

Randy, I think you threw the first stone, as I said. But I also think it would be pointless to try to get down to that level of detail, as tit tends to equal tat in the end.

I've tried to make nice. I'm truly sorry if you don't want to do so at this time. As FB said, "people kill threads", and I'm afraid that this one is well and truly dead. If you give me guff in the future, I'll try to just ignore it. But I'll not suppress my (respectfully stated) opinions on any other thread just because someone (e.g., you) might not like them.

Parenthetically, I don't like American football (as opposed to European football), so you'd be unlikely to find me at a Raider's game. However, if a Raider's fan would assult an opponents' fan, then that's a poor statement about sports fandom. If you would support or revel in such an assult, even against someone you hate, then that's a problem between you and your conscience, I suppose.

If you did come up in the Grob...I'd be so tempted to loop...or at least turn off your oxygen supply and thereby make you silly...but I promise you I wouldn't (CAUTION: tongue-in-cheek, not to be taken seriously CAUTION). The free flight offer still stands if you ever want to take it up.

With regrets and hopes, Mike

 

To answer a few of your points:

I was not on law review but believe I am still capable of thinking clearly;

I don't chase ambulances but am an intellectual property partner in a large national law firm;

As far as I know, they (thankfully) don't generally teach medical institution hierarchy in college;

I don't run straight pipes or an overly loud exhaust - simple RSR's with cats;

I believe my responses to date have been very rational and that your points, although couched in multi-syllabic prose, are primarily based on an emotional response to exhaust systems you deem overly loud (an opinion I actually share to some degree);

Unfortunately, the speed limits don't proscribe for a fudge factor of any sort although that's how they are enforced - you're either speeding or you're not;

The fact that you attribute less importance to the laws regarding speeding than those regarding noise pollution is your own personal interpretation of those laws - it doesn't make you any less culpable for speeding;

The legislative history behind the national speed limits reveals that they were based on a "cost" to society in terms of increased national dependence on oil and increased cost of emergency services related to injuries sustained in high speed accidents. So, according to the legislators, by speeding you are indeed imposing an additional burden on society;

I don't believe (nor ever said) that a sustained 110 MPH on public roads is a safe activity nor do I believe I could convince my peers otherwise;

I believe you generally make some good points regarding air and noise pollution but your condescending writing style puts many members of the board off and engenders nasty responses;

... and finally, sorry to hear about the loss of your father. That's a whole lot more important than (what I hope) is some harmless banter back and forth which shouldn't realty get to the point of personal attacks. Good luck winding up your family affairs.

 

Thanks Ernie, you're a gentleman, and I'll try to be more respectful. Perhaps my debater background in high school makes me overly pedantic--Actually, I know it is a fault of mine. I was always a better "second negative" than "first affirmative".

Got to go and get on that plane now.

Thanks, Mike

 

The majority of this thread is a shameful waste of server space.