On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 11:45:25 -0400, "Dirk J. Bakker" wrote:

>Then use a SEPARATE thread. The injection of "monkey-wrench" comments do
>not "carry the exchange forward" now do they?
>
>You obviously do not see them as such (lack of introspection or self
>control) but your joking analogy DISRESPECTS the right of the original
>poster to CHOOSE and his JUDGMENT. This is NOT the first time. You
>demonstrated this tact throughout earlier threads where you (apparently
>need to) resort to this.
>
>Are you so unsure of the merits of your own reasoning that you need this
>approach?
>ENOUGH ALREADY!
>
>Is this ANOTHER example of the "double standards" and "reasoning" that
>cloud your objectivity in posts and reviews?
>
>Learn to discern WHEN these comments add or detract. Let's see who tires
>first.

I "rest my case" - the evidence appears
in this post, in the thread above, and
in other threads you join, that your
purpose is other than calm, intelligent
discussion of video issues - and is the
"defense" of your icon, the Canon XL-1
(and its "sub-icons", the other Canon
models...) by whatever means, against
all attempts at reasonable discussions
of the relative merits of various models.
"Facts be damned; roll out the confusions!"
appears to be your motto...;-)
My apologies to the group for getting
personal here with a poster, but at
some point, it can be necessary to try
to "clear the air" of continuing nonsense
and get on with the discussion of *video*
issues with less useless interference...