Again, props to Steve Plever. We have had many differences-- I think you may be the only person ever barred from this board more than once. But your recent post on the other board about the standards and practices of that place (note the lack of a characterizing noun there) was the act of a stand up non-partisan, and you have my respect for it. I don\'t remember whether you are barred or not at the moment, but you are officially non-barred as of now. And you don\'t even have to say nice things about me.
If anyone wants to see what that board is all about, just take a look at the string that follows Steve\'s post. Friedman complains about people posting under aliases, among 12 other posts on the string-- all of which are under aliases. He wrings his hands at the personal things that have been said-- and lets Tom/Alydar\'Janis/Halle Berry etc. throw lots more garbge at me while saying he\'s done with the subject.
And, of course, there is that perpetual source of comic relief-- \"Indulto\", who once again is up in arms against anonymous posting. Last time he did this I told him I agreed, and asked him point blank whether he had ever posted on my board and if so under what names-- he disappeared from sight. But even by his standards, saying he was \"drawn to the freedom of expression and the witty no-holds-barred back and forth\" of the Ragozin board is a lifetime comedy top. Tom, you have asked why he doesn\'t post here-- he probably has, and he\'s definitely afraid to.
A couple of quick points.
1-- Len, you got it wrong, again. Jimbo made clear that he was using Beyerguy\'s log-in, and why, in his first post on YOUR board.
2-- The difference between what takes place here and there (aside from the incredibly high percentage of posts on their board concerning me and TG) is that Len (and others) believe the end justifies the means. You don\'t see personal attacks here, unless you count the times I catch Len (or in some cases his employees) in a PUBLIC lie and bring EVIDENCE of it with me. My \"attacks\" on those guys are methodolgy based, and I go after them on the merits. They never respond, or engage in any real debate about the significant issues. If you saw the DVD of the Expo, where Len tried to answer the question about Keenland baby figures, you can probably guess why. Len just denies everything, calls me a liar without presenting any evidence or argument whatsoever, and allows his board to be used by anonymous crackpots to call me names and lie about me.
Len, as you know (because you and I have discussed it face to face), if I wanted to play the end-justifies-the means-game, you guys would have been out of business long ago. You guys are still around because I am a better person than you are, and because I want to beat you on the merits. And I am doing so, despite giving you a huge head start, and doing it while playing it straight, despite extreme provocation.
Jerry, what emanates from that board is that you\'re held in disregard because you\'re held in high regard. You\'re the professor with the big ideas and the goofy hair. The other \"scientists\" huddle together with their coffee whispering about barbers. They all know your theories are sound and that they can\'t debate them, so they make fun of the locks. It's all they have that they can be critical of.
Consider it indicia of importance.
You see, to men like Friedman getting up on stage and sounding important is more important than being important or even being correct. Image is everything in that house of cards. The baby races as an example, also the failure to correct clear ground loss errors.
You can\'t bombast your way through tough facts among the knowledgeable though. Tough situations have to be addressed with careful thought and accurate speech. That's what scares them.
I\'d really like to see that contest come off, because I think the quality of their numbers must be at an all time low. They are far worse than when I last reviewed them over a decade ago.
\" 1-- Len, you got it wrong, again. Jimbo made clear that he was using
Beyerguy\'s log-in, and why, in his first post on YOUR board. \"
I regret how harsh this sounds, but I thought Jimbo got exactly what his posts, on both boards, deserved. Actually,
the\"name calling\" you object to started with Jimbo(pigs, etc). Until
recently, I\'ve enjoyed Jimbo\'s posts, as I\'ve mentioned to you. However,
when he says he supervises 100 programmers but can\'t manage to figure out
how to get a password on the Rags BB, or find Len\'s post, I have to wonder?
Then come his posts of \"outrage\" at the Rags BB comment on TGJB\'s legal
dispute with Chris. Isn\'t he at least a little curious about Derby1592\'s
position? Didn\'t he form any sense of Chris\' character in all of this time?
Those issues cast a pall on the sincerity of all of his posts, and certainly
on the seemingly feigned objectivity of his comments regarding studies that
compared the two products.
Isn\'t it odd that there\'s hardly a word of support here for
Derby1592? He was one of the most revered posters on this board(he was my
personal favorite here, though there are several I enjoy reading). One day
he\'s guest ROTW analyst, the next day, anathema. What
kind of \"lock-step\" mentality exists here? Isn\'t sp curious about this
sudden turn-around of fortunes, especially since he elaborates on his
perception of JJ\'s. I don\'t expect you to give legal positions/information,
nor to give air-time here to a defendant in your law suit, but the axe does
seem to fall more swiftly, completely, and menacingly here than the simple
guillotine over there.
\"You guys are still around because I am a better person than you are.\"
Are you suggesting that somehow, on this board, that kind of statement
stands as a fact-based methodology comment?
\"despite giving you[The Sheets] a huge head start, \"
For you, TGJB, and all others who may wonder at how some of the
controversial posts originate, speaking only for myself, that statement is what prompts most of the
jabs I poke at TGJB. On this BB, readers would be led to believe the
implied intellectual distortion that TGJB, Pittsburgh Phil, Buddy Abadie and
Donaldson(or whoever else is convenient to the position that dilutes TGJB\'s
reliance on Ragozin for his beginnings in this business) put together a
consortium that generated this whole vision of single number,
effort-pattern, variant-based assessments of probabilities(that has inter-track reliabilty) as an approach to handicapping. TGJB makes it sound as though he trained the Ragozins, and even generously gave them a head start in the business!
TGJB\'s approach has it\'s advocates, and likely has it\'s own merits, it\'s
just not as portrayed on this board. I like downloading the ROTW here, and
reviewing the analytical comment. I value the support for cleaning up the sport. I listened to the Expo audio. I applaud the business success of entrepreneurs, including TGJB. However, if you\'ve read Ragozins\' book, or listened to the tapes, you already know Friedman clearly acknowledges his humble beginnings in this business as a student of Len Ragozin. That whole piece is glaringly absent over here. The absence of that humility, honesty and integrity is the substance of my objections here, and many of my posts, and predisposes me to doubt TGJB and favor Chris in wondering about what happened with Derby1592.
I don\'t know if this will stay up or not. But, if it does, I ask that you, as readers, please make your best objective attempt to glean the essence of what I am saying here, then see if TGJB responds in a way which shows that he acknowledges an understanding of what I have said(I don\'t expect any agreement from him, just enough of a response to show the capacity for acknowledgement of anothers\' point of view).
razzle, you use more words to say less than any man I have ever read.
Let me help you here, In Summation (a nice horse by the way) the \"lawsuit\" is analogous to the grand jury inquiry regarding the CIA revelations. There is no need for you to feel nor believe anything, nor to spin. Both are in the hands of the legal system and the truth will out. Trying to spin it merely smacks of partisanship.
Now if you have some factual information please share.
Its clear you don\'t like the professors hair. Is that all there is?
lol
CtC
Raz-- I will enjoy responding to that trash at length, although others here may not enjoy reading it-- I suggest they just skip it.
But just for starters-- the position you take (and others in that cesspool have tried on for size), that Jimbo\'s characterization of you guys as \"pigs\" was the START of it, is a totally self evident bunch of crap. He was RESPONDING to undiluted garbage coming from you and others attacking me-- at the time he posted that, there were about 10 personal attacks and mischaracterizations on the Rag board, some by you. I sought a legal remedy to a problem, and did NOT go after those guys here-- YOU and your buddies made a public issue of it, unprovoked. There was nothing on either board about it until YOU GUYS put it there, and then you intentionally mischaracterized it, and me.
So you have serious chutzpah making yourself out as a victim. ESPECIALLY, as you and I know, since you have e-mailed me asking me to not go after the guys over there. Right? Since then (though not because of your request), the attack posts have probably run 10-1 coming this way, and most certainly have over the last 2 weeks-- Jimbo\'s was one of maybe 5 that have appeared here. So what does that make you?
I want to point out something, moron. When Len or JJ or you go after me, everybody knows who I am, and it has the potential to affect my business. When Jimbo rightly calls you guys pigs (or I call Indulto a putz), we are referring to anonymous nonentities that nobody cares about, and who can\'t be affected by it in the real world. Do you get that? Do you understand that your actions have consequences? JJ does--it\'s why he does all that lying.
More to follow. Count on it.
Raz, I have to tell you, I just re-read your post, and it has to stand as one of the greatest examples of factual innacuracy and outright stupidity I have ever seen.
1-- Jimbo identified himself in the byline of his FIRST post on the Rag board. Go check. So that business about him trying to put one over is nonsense. And what the hell would be the point, anyway?
2-- His \"outrage\" was at the personal attacks at me. As far as I know, neither he nor anyone else has expressed an opinion one way or another on my suit (nobody has any knowledge of the facts, although that certainly didn\'t stop you and the other morons). Go check. There have been neither \"words of support\" nor negative comments about those I am suing. Not even from me.
3-- \"What kind of lock-step mentality exists here\"? That\'s a joke, right? Very funny. \"The axe does seem to fall more swiftly, completely, and menacingly here than the simple guillotine over there\". Mel Brooks has nothing on you-- Friedman has deleted at least 10 times the number of posts I have. Posts like yours here have had no chance to draw breath.
4-- \"You guys are around because I am a better person than you\". Raz, note the use of the second person. Even if you didn\'t have the sentence that preceded it (where I addressed him by name), you should have been able to get that the comment was directed at Friedman-- he knows what I\'m talking about, as I made clear. Get it?
5-- Holy, smoke, Raz. I have not only talked about my years at Ragozin\'s many times here, I talked about them at some length at the Expo-- watch the damn DVD. On the other hand, TO THIS DAY the Ragozin weekly page in the Thoroughbred Times (another example of them not marketing, by the way) is accompanied by a box. It referred to Ragzoin as \"the father of speed figures)-- who do you think gave them that idea?-- until I pointed the editors towards the Donaldson book. Now it calls Ragozin the MODERN father of speed figures (sort of like slightly pregnant).
Donaldson\'s book, which came out in the early 1930s, covers virtually everything Ragzoin took credit for in his book and everywhere else he could-- AND DONALDSON\'S IS JUST ONE BOOK. So who is taking false credit?
You owe several apologies here, some to Jim. But I\'m not holding my breath.
TGJB,
\" ESPECIALLY, as you and I know, since you have e-mailed me asking me to not go after the guys over there.\"
I have never e-mailed you regarding any such thing. My e-mail to you last Dec(I can provide the e-mails) was about much the same as this post. That is that you seem never to acknowledge what\'s being said to you. I\'m not asking for agreement, just acknowledgement. Because you don\'t acknowledge, you don\'t reply to the substance of messages. You just did it again.
\"YOU and your buddies made a public issue of it, unprovoked. There was nothing on either board about it until YOU GUYS put it there, and then you intentionally mischaracterized it, and me.\"
The issue was made public on another board,not The Sheets, and brought to everyone\'s attention by someone who posts on both boards. Yes, I used it to take jabs at you, especially some of the language in the complaint, but, more importantly, to draw attention to the irony of your position. Talk about \"chutpah.\"
\"That cesspool\", \"moron\", \"non-entity\", I\'m glad you\'re not into name-calling or getting personal.
As I said in my post, if anyone can find anything in your response that acknowledges the substance of anything I said, let\'s hear it. Admittedly, your defense of Jimbo speaks to one small portion of the substance, very selective though, wouldn\'t you say?
Your point that my comments can affect your business is well-taken. I\'ve taken my jabs at you, as is my right, and you are a public target by virtue of this board, but I have no intent to hurt your business.
Raz-- I replied not only to the substance but to the spirit of your post-- I always do. And I call names when it is called for. And boy, is it ever-- as anyone who read your post and my reply can see.
Your e-mails were about not attacking. You attacked me, unprovoked. This is brain surgery?
\"The issue was made public on another board\". Oh, well that\'s okay then-- \"jab\" away. It\'s all in fun, like when I call you a moron. You are indeed clueless.
Wow,
I don\'t recommend anyone reading the below again word of word. It\'s too fragmented and lacks a theme other than \"I don\'t like TGJB and Thorograph\".
Sometimes you just have to step back and distill why everyone is up in arms. The reason is this:
Jimbo66 had the audacity to propose a study or a contest of sorts comparing Rags to TFigs. Thats it!!! I have no real bone to pick in that fight, but I\'d like to see the study.
They don\'t want to engage in the kind of activity of course. It would probably kill them, so they resort to pulling out 10 year old documents and pawning them off as somehow relevent to the present accuracy considerations of Jimbo\'s proposal.
But thats not enough. Jimbo66\'s proposal gathers some steam so then they feel they have to smear him in regard to the form of the proposal. Heck, for all I know he can\'t even get the administrator there to issue him a i.d. I know they won\'t issue me one. Now they say Jimbo\'s proposal lacks merit because he isn\'t particularly concerned about a lawsuit no one knows anything about.
Well I know one thing, Frivilous lawsuits can result in huge penalties. So the Ragheads can all root for a frivilous lawsuit I suppose.
That doesnt make proposing comparison of Figure accuracy unethical does it? Thats a rhetorical question.
Is all this other stuff crazy men or what?
razzle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> \" 1-- Len, you got it wrong, again. Jimbo made
> clear that he was using
> Beyerguy\'s log-in, and why, in his first post on
> YOUR board. \"
>
> I regret how harsh this sounds, but I thought
> Jimbo got exactly what his posts, on both boards,
> deserved. Actually,
> the\"name calling\" you object to started with
> Jimbo(pigs, etc). Until
> recently, I\'ve enjoyed Jimbo\'s posts, as I\'ve
> mentioned to you. However,
> when he says he supervises 100 programmers but
> can\'t manage to figure out
> how to get a password on the Rags BB, or find
> Len\'s post, I have to wonder?
> Then come his posts of \"outrage\" at the Rags BB
> comment on TGJB\'s legal
> dispute with Chris. Isn\'t he at least a little
> curious about Derby1592\'s
> position? Didn\'t he form any sense of Chris\'
> character in all of this time?
> Those issues cast a pall on the sincerity of all
> of his posts, and certainly
> on the seemingly feigned objectivity of his
> comments regarding studies that
> compared the two products.
>
> Isn\'t it odd that there\'s hardly a word of
> support here for
> Derby1592? He was one of the most revered posters
> on this board(he was my
> personal favorite here, though there are several I
> enjoy reading). One day
> he\'s guest ROTW analyst, the next day, anathema.
> What
> kind of \"lock-step\" mentality exists here? Isn\'t
> sp curious about this
> sudden turn-around of fortunes, especially since
> he elaborates on his
> perception of JJ\'s. I don\'t expect you to give
> legal positions/information,
> nor to give air-time here to a defendant in your
> law suit, but the axe does
> seem to fall more swiftly, completely, and
> menacingly here than the simple
> guillotine over there.
>
> \"You guys are still around because I am a better
> person than you are.\"
>
> Are you suggesting that somehow, on this board,
> that kind of statement
> stands as a fact-based methodology comment?
>
> \"despite giving you a huge head start, \"
>
> For you, TGJB, and all others who may wonder at
> how some of the
> controversial posts originate, speaking only for
> myself, that statement is what prompts most of the
>
> jabs I poke at TGJB. On this BB, readers would
> be led to believe the
> implied intellectual distortion that TGJB,
> Pittsburgh Phil, Buddy Abadie and
> Donaldson(or whoever else is convenient to the
> position that dilutes TGJB\'s
> reliance on Ragozin for his beginnings in this
> business) put together a
> consortium that generated this whole vision of
> single number,
> effort-pattern, variant-based assessments of
> probabilities(that has inter-track reliabilty) as
> an approach to handicapping. TGJB makes it sound
> as though he trained the Ragozins, and even
> generously gave them a head start in the
> business!
>
> TGJB\'s approach has it\'s advocates, and likely has
> it\'s own merits, it\'s
> just not as portrayed on this board. I like
> downloading the ROTW here, and
> reviewing the analytical comment. I value the
> support for cleaning up the sport. I listened to
> the Expo audio. I applaud the business success of
> entrepreneurs, including TGJB. However, if you\'ve
> read Ragozins\' book, or listened to the tapes, you
> already know Friedman clearly acknowledges his
> humble beginnings in this business as a student of
> Len Ragozin. That whole piece is glaringly absent
> over here. The absence of that humility, honesty
> and integrity is the substance of my objections
> here, and many of my posts, and predisposes me to
> doubt TGJB and favor Chris in wondering about what
> happened with Derby1592.
>
> I don\'t know if this will stay up or not. But, if
> it does, I ask that you, as readers, please make
> your best objective attempt to glean the essence
> of what I am saying here, then see if TGJB
> responds in a way which shows that he acknowledges
> an understanding of what I have said(I don\'t
> expect any agreement from him, just enough of a
> response to show the capacity for acknowledgement
> of anothers\' point of view).
>
>
>
>
>
TGJB,
\"Your e-mails were about not attacking. You attacked me, unprovoked. This
is brain surgery? \"
Again, my e-mails to you were about acknowledging, as this one
is(\"attacking\" only had marginal relevance). I don\'t think of it as brain
surgery, I\'m trying to understand your difficulty with it?
\"outright stupidity\"
\"you and the other morons\"
More non-personal attacks I suppose?
\"I have not only talked about my years at Ragozin\'s many times here...\"
I think that\'s as close as I\'m going to get from you. It\'s generally on topic, but
not acknowledging.
\" So who is taking false credit? \"
This statement is sort of a back-handed acknowledgement in the form of a
question. You are correctly identifying that the issue raised is that of
\"taking false credit\" but you\'re doing it in a way in which your hands don\'t
appear dirty? Logically, whether Donaldson described a similar process in
the 30\'s or not, is an irrelevancy if Ragozin\'s father didn\'t work for
him(presumably he did not, nor did LR or LF,) or, if there\'s no reason to
believe they took their approach to figure-making from him. Unless, of
course, you are suggesting that you found the Donaldson source on your own, took it to the Ragozins, and they used it to generate their whole approach, and rushed it to press under their by-line, without giving you credit.
In any event, I don\'t suppose continuing this serves any purpose for either of us. For the record, personal attacks/name calling(as you\'ve displayed here), the absence of acknowledgement of anothers\' point of view, and the intellectual integrity issue of \"taking false credit\" are the essence of my objections. So far, my doubts are not assuaged, but I do appreciate the \"airing.\"
.
ctc,
ctc,
\" Razzle, you use more words to say less than any man I have ever read.\"
Thanks for the offer of help, but your post is neither hair nor there. Stay
with it, and keep reading.
It may not show, but I do appreciate any brevity you can muster in your responses.
I\'ll endeavor to be brief, if you\'ll attempt to be relevant.
Sometimes brevity is a sign of intelligence. Sometimes it isn\'t. You\'ll find the distinction in an analysis of the text.
Caveat: An inability to be relevant probably won\'t get one very far in determining when brevity is a talent and when its not.
razzle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ctc,
>
> ctc,
>
> \" Razzle, you use more words to say less than any
> man I have ever read.\"
>
> Thanks for the offer of help, but your post is
> neither hair nor there. Stay
> with it, and keep reading.
>
> It may not show, but I do appreciate any brevity
> you can muster in your responses.
Raz-- I shouldn\'t even bother with this, but I will anyway.
1-- Yes, they were personal comments, negative ones. Following weeks of much harsher ones against me-- go back and look at the original string on the Ragozin board about the lawsuit, and others that followed. I didn\'t see you making the point then, there, that anyone was out of line to make those comments, and in fact you were one of the ones doing it. My comments yesterday were a REPLY to personal attacks by you and others. And you have quite a pair making it look like I\'m the aggressor.
2-- You don\'t get it. I have acknowledged I started with Ragozin, and thought at that time-- as did Friedman until recently-- that Ragozin invented the whole deal. Connie Merjos told me otherwise, and the Donaldson book was strong evidence that Ragozin\'s claim (\"Father of speed figures\"), repeated weekly in their Thoroughbred Times piece, and implied in his book,is a load of crap. Do I think Len and his father went to school on the thousands who made speed figures before them? Yes. There is even an ad in the back of my copy of the book (early 1930s, remember) for speed figures that can be bought via mail, and Len acknowledged in his book reading lots of handicapping material-- you would have to go some to come up with a way he could have done that and avoided the stuff specifically about what he was doing (making figures), especially since Donaldson\'s book went to 15 printings.
People were making figures using weight (TimeForm, among others, starting after WWII), ground and wind (Connie Merjos among many others) before Ragozin. Len MAY have been the first to incorporate ALL those elements-- we don\'t know, because if someone else did so they may have kept them for private use, as Ragozin did until he decided he didn\'t have the temperment to bet for a living (I\'m being kind here, I was there), and starting selling to me and a few others who could win.
He also MAY have been the first to put them on a graph (his father\'s idea, he resisted), but we don\'t know about that for the same reason. There are a couple of form cycle graphs in the Donaldson book, and he does talk about figure patterns elsewhere, so my guess would be that somebody, at some point, tried it.
He was, as far as I know, the first to SELL ready to use figures incorporating all the elements that we both now measure. And his figures were more accurate than those that preceded them-- as far as I know.
3-- As far as the acknowledging thing goes-- you have seen some in the other direction? Point me to it.
Look-- I had pretty much stopped going after Ragozin, even on the obvious errors (there was another good one recently). I did this because it\'s obvious they don\'t have a significant internet presence, and the serious conversation is taking place on this site. I didn\'t even attack when you guys sent that tonnage my way about the suit-- I just explained the true nature of the suit. So in trying to make me (and Jimbo) out to be the aggressors, you are way out of line.
TGJB,
I\'m not sure why you consider the title \"Father of Speed Figures\" in any way significant in terms of marketing or credibility (assuming I am reading you correctly about why the topic even comes up).
The only thing that matters is who makes the best figures now.
\"Fathers\" are often left in the dust by their offspring.
Finally saw the chart.
You have to hand it to Sun King, he overcame some significant adversity there and won easily. He didn\'t beat much, but the weight, trip and margin certainly made it a very good effort.
I wish he\'d stubbed his toe...lol
Sure Jerry they see you and TG coming all the way , so their throwing all this junk at you as a clever and calculated ruse in an attempt to slow you down . It does look and sound more slanderous in nature than it does just good old fashion chin music that Rag\'s is perpatraiting and espousing here - these folks are definately playing dirty .
However an apparent stratigy on Rag\'s part seems to be backfiring - they\'ve unquestionably thrown in a clunker this time around .
I\'ve read a majority of the threads on this one and it seem\'s to me that Rag\'s may be given credit for a good enough effort to help too largely popularize speed figues and thats about it .
They are not however any longer good enough ( for any number of various reasons ) to make the best speed figure\'s , provide top thoroughbred mngmnt services and publish a daily handicapping product that is 2nd to none going . Perhaps a court would award you for damages inncured ( and the hassle ) ...
>
> For the sake of the readers\' time, I am re-listing three paragraphs from my previous posts which summarize my intent in posting here. For claritys\' sake, I\'ll
> label them A,B,C.
>
>
>>A. ...Friedman clearly acknowledges his humble beginnings in this business
>>as a student of Len Ragozin. That whole piece is glaringly absent over
>>here. The absence of that humility, honesty and integrity is the substance
>>of my objections here, many of my posts over there...
>>
>> B. I don\'t know if this will stay up or not. But, if it does, I ask that
>> you, as readers, please make your best objective attempt to glean the
>> essence of what I am saying here, then see if TGJB responds in a way which
>> shows that he acknowledges an understanding of what I have said(I don\'t
>> expect any agreement from him, just enough of a response to show the
>> capacity for acknowledgement of anothers\' point of view).
>>
>>C. In any event, I don\'t suppose continuing this serves any purpose for
>>either of us. For the record, personal attacks/name calling(as you\'ve
>>displayed here), the absence of acknowledgement of anothers\' point of view,
>>and the intellectual integrity issue of \"taking false credit\" are the
>>essence of my objections. So far, my doubts are not assuaged, but I do
>>appreciate the \"airing.\"
>>
>> JB\'s responses, despite my additional posts to clarify my questions:
>>
>>
>> \"1-- Yes, they were personal comments, negative ones. Following weeks of
>> much harsher ones against me-- go back and look at the original string on
>> the Ragozin board about the lawsuit, and others that followed. I didn\'t
>> see you making the point then, there, that anyone was out of line to make
>> those comments, and in fact you were one of the ones doing it. My comments
>> yesterday were a REPLY to personal attacks by you and others. And you have
>> quite a pair making it look like I\'m the aggressor.\"
>>
>> Here\'s how JB\'s response numbered \"1.\" sounds to me.
>
> Somebody insulted me, so I\'m going to
>> start name-calling right back. Also, his post suggests that I somehow owe
>> him some protection/defense against other posters? Maybe there\'s some
>> unspoken rule on these boards of which I\'m unaware? Besides, if he
>> responds to others like he did all day Sunday to me, defending him would be a
>> full-time job.
>>
>> \"And you have quite a pair making it look like I\'m the aggressor. \"
>>
>> Please, JB, stop trying to mis-direct this communication. There is
>> NOTHING suggesting or implying anything of the sort in any of my posts.
>> You tend to manufacture insults against yourself, then respond to your
>> manufactured insults. You are entitled to manufacture as many insults
>> against yourself as you would like, but why use it to muddy the waters of
>> the issues in my posts?
>
> JB\'s response numbered \"2.\"
>
> \" 2-- You don\'t get it. I have acknowledged I started with Ragozin, ...\"
>
> So far, I\'ve gotten JB to ACKNOWLEDGE he worked for Ragozin. Of course, we all knew that already. The rest of the response goes off about,
> \"somebody(Merjos) told me something bad about Ragozin, and there is this
> Donaldson book from the 30\'s, and Ragozin is calling himself the Father of
> Speed Figures and I wish he wouldn\'t, blah, blah, blah.\" Ever ask someone
> for the \"time\", and get the \"how to make a watch, and why do we worry so
> much about time in this country\" response?
>
> JB\'s response numbered \"3.\"
>
> \"3-- As far as the acknowledging thing goes-- you have seen some in the
> other direction? Point me to it. \"
>
> Well folks, here we are, 3 days later, all these posts, and this is what I
> get. JB is essentially saying, \"I\'m not ACKNOWLEDGING until \'they\' do
> first. Is it just coincidence that number 3 has that same childish flavor
> that number 1 had? Unfortunately, the more serious question remains of whether he has the capacity to acknowledge. I believe he does, I just don\'t know why he omits that critical step in communcation.
>
> JB\'s parting shot:
>
> \"So in trying to make me (and Jimbo) out to be the aggressors, you are way
> out of line. \"
>
> Again, I get this manufactured charge, which draws Jimbo into it this time.
> This is apparently what he wants this series of posts to be about?
>
> In summary, JB has decreased the name-calling in his
> final post, but, as predicted, has been unable to ACKNOWLEDGE any of the relevant issues I raise, certainly not the primary one of \"taking false credit.\"(those are his words). I thought that since I had taken some jabs at him on the other board, I owed it to him(and you as readers of this board) to come over here and state what prompts my posts. As you and I know, ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of anothers\' point of view is the basis for ALL interpersonal communication, regardless of the medium. Without ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, interpersonal communication quickly degenerates into personal attacks. It\'s predictable, as you have seen here in JB\'s responses(incidentally, that is exactly what I said to him in my e-mails to him last December).
>