Re: Why to Rolling Stone?

["Scott Schrade" <schrade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> If I could break in here, it's not Scott's intelligence we notice so much, 
> but his wit.  :)

D'oh!  How about we compromise & say I have an "intelligent wit!"

> Everyone had their own personalized contribution to the list. If I might say 
> so, yours is emotion, Kevin.  

That implies Kevin doesn't use his brains, & nothing could be further from the
truth.  How would you feel if we said *your* contribution to the list, Keets, was
brainy essays lacking any feeling?  Let's not generalize.  Each post from each
lister is a whole new ballgame & shouldn't be lumped into some kind of per-
ceived psyche.

> As Joe....

"Jo" when she's feeling masculine?

> ....pointed out, we're supposed to be friends, so there's no need for constant 
> defence, or even choosing up sides. 

Just because I have a differing opinion from Jon, & we "get into it" on the
list doesn't mean I don't consider him a friend.  If I didn't consider him a friend
or someone worth talking to, I wouldn't even respond to or get all worked up
by his posts.  

Again, even with my lame, immature insults & jabs, I still consider Jon a fellow
Who-Freak, & good friend.  His opposing viewpoints educate me.  I'm getting
off on the discussion/argument, not any hate.  

> I'd expect different people to take different sides in any particular discussion, 
> but that doesn't mean they won't be on your sides in the next one.

Exactly.


- SCHRADE in Akron