Chad Richard Bresson wrote:
> Nice to see you’ve joined the ranks of unqualified asserters with this 
> post. :-)

You would be accurate if it were not for the fact that I explained how I
arrived at this conclusion, which is precisely what you do not do in
your drive-by posts.

>  >the attitude that we should just trust you that your unqualified
>  > statement is correct. 
> 
> That would be reading what I post in the worst possible light.  And 
> FWIW, I expect no one to trust that my statement is correct.  It’s 
> merely suggesting that there exists another point of view **within** the 
> NCT framework.

That is exactly my point.  You offer no other "light" by which to read
your drive-by posts.  You often make an assertion and leave the
assertion by itself as if the universe itself understands you are correct.

> In fact, the drive-bys are usually aimed at those who are proffering 
> their position as the **correct** NCT one... the fact that there are 
> dissenting opinions (hence, the drive-bys) should be enough to mute that 
> kind of proffering.  Unfortunately, it doesn’t.  Variety of opinions is 
> fine.... positing official NCT positions when there are none seems to 
> beg the question.

So the drive-by posts are simply to point out there are competing
opinions?  That is weak.  The drive-bys are usually aimed at those you
have already been disagreeing with so the point is usually made prior to
the drive-by.
--
john-thomas