In Reply to: Your aim isn't very good posted by Rob Doorack on February 8, 2007 at 06:43:25:
RobSo, let me see if I get this right. You are angry because someone else cited my article in a positive way … hum, OK. The article was for fun, nothing more. That point continues, apparently, to elude you.
But you really should be more careful; you re-make some of my points about critics so eloquently someone will assume we are working together covertly, and we certainly don’t want that.
Jejune? Wow, I haven’t actually seen or heard someone over the age of seventeen publicly use that term since Woody Allen’s, Annie Hall, and he was only doing it to castigate pseudo-intellectual puffery.
Interesting too you should immediately descend into genitalia when gently prodded … but here we have an opportunity to appeal to the objectivists. You take a picture of yours, and I will take a picture of mine and we will send them in to the Bored and they can do a double-blind size comparison. What say? In the name of Science, let the games begin!
You also remind me why I so rarely visit these sorts of places … kind of like trying have a nice picnic in an abattoir.
All kidding aside though, Rob, thanks for the giggle. I appreciate your humor. It’s been a harrowing day and I needed a lift.
The Good Doctor
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Your aim isn't very good - Dr. S 13:56:39 02/08/07 (2)
- You don't seem to understand the difference between objective and subjective - Rob Doorack 08:09:13 02/09/07 (0)
- "You re-make some of my points about critics so eloquently." That's *priceless*, mon! nt - clarkjohnsen 14:23:13 02/08/07 (0)