COME BACK TO US, GREG!


In truth, I was directly addressing the issue raised by Greg,
who for some reason that nobody can fathom still denies that
he is our beloved Greg. -- Larry Parr

Why is the above any concern of yours? -- g4

Mr. g4 wished to be noticed. He felt ignored.
I am doing my best to notice him.

My primary concern, as always, is the argument
rather than the man. But in this instance, Mr.
Kennedy made his person the argument. I responded.

Greg Kennedy as help bot does not wish to be
called Greg Kennedy. I then addressed the issue of
why Greg does not wish to be known as Greg. The g4
anonymouse then accused me of discussing the man
rather than the argument.

Nonsense.

In this instance, the man was the argument. Greg
does not wish to be called by his real name, and I
addressed why such is so. He appeared here before
under Greg Kennedy and nomorechess.

Our g4, who keeps speculating about the identity of
jr, then asks why the matter is any of my business.

The answer: because Greg brought up the subject in an
adversarial proceeding. I addressed said subject, which in
this instance, once again, happened to be -- by Greg's own
choosing -- his person.



g4 wrote:
wrote in message ups.com...
COME BACK TO US, GREG!

As an aside, I suppose the real reason why parr
ignores me is because he don't know **** about me ...
and thus cannot attack my person when (not if, but
when) he loses the intellectual side of an argument.
-- g4 (formerly say no to g4)

Dear g4,

I apologize for ignoring you. I guess your comment
calls for a claim by me to be rolling on the floor and laughing.


Well, I'm glad to hear you got a good laugh out of my comment ...
particularly since you most likely haven't had much to laugh about
recently.

How did you like reading about Sam Sloan's muzzlement? Must have felt
like a kick in the stomach, eh larry?



For the record, Greg Kennedy (aka help bot) was complaining
about being called Greg Kennedy. That was the issue.


You seem to be focused too much on bringing down the messenger
rather than defeating the message. Reading through some of your messages
from years past, you often pointed out to your readers (as if we needed
pointing out) that you dealt with the message and left the messenger's
person out of the discussion. But that was when you were doing battle
with weakies such as Rolf Tuechen, Gilbert Palmer, Jerome Bibuld, to
name a few. (sometimes I wonder if you made up those characters and
were essentially arguing with yourself.) But today, you have stronger
competition ... and IMO you're not faring so well ... and thus you've taken
to attaking people.



My
response was to address why Greg does not wish to be known
under that name on this newsgroup. In truth, I was directly
addressing the issue raised by Greg, who for some reason
that nobody can fathom still denies that he is our beloved Greg.


Why is the above any concern of yours?