[MD] re , Dan

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 12:15 AM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Dan,
>>
> I assume this email was for me, since you mention my name.  I think you are
> wrong, I do realize that there are meaningful statements, and I do read the
> posts with interest.  I believe I am trying to help put the concept together
> in a universal setting, in the best way I know how.

Dan:
Well, Adrie mentioned your name. I was answering his post.

>Mark:
> I realize that Adrie is trying to ingratiate himself with you, and the best
> way he sees of doing that is by taking sides and creating the illusion of
> common enemies. bashing me.  It doesn't bother me, but I have never seen
> kind of attitude result in a productive endeavor.  There are still those who
> need enemies to create their own sense of value.   While the cross talk is
> entertaining, kind of like open gossip, I do not find it becoming of this
> forum.

Dan:
I consider Adrie a friend. We have much in common... very little
formal education, working with our hands and our hearts, and a
propensity for self-taught knowledge. Too, the fact that English is
not his first language impresses me a great deal. I like Adrie. He
doesn't tell me how intelligent he is... he shows me. And I appreciate
that.

>Mark:
> I believe we all have one thing in common, and that is to promote the
> concept of Quality so that it is understood by many.    Perhaps we can agree
> to discuss things in a formal manner, or not respond.  I know this may be
> contrary to the way the forum has been handled, at least over the last two
> and a half years (I cut my teeth with Krimel when I started, and you know
> how that goes).  If we do not agree on everything that is fine, so long as
> we approach the topic logically, without rancour.

Dan:
Krimel is an old friend of mine too. And yes, I know he can be
abrasive, but so can I. As far as this forum goes, I follow the
guidelines; I write what comes to mind. I don't need any suggestions
from you. Sorry if that irritates but that's the way it is.

>Mark:
> So, I suggest that we drop this silly bickering, I will do my part.  If
> Adrie wishes to create some kind of polarization then he will fail.   There
> is no need to stoop to personal criticisms, if someone has a problem with my
> topics, we can discuss them, or not.  Let's criticize concepts and premises
> and not people. I am more than happy to reread posts that you suggest, I
> cannot go looking through the whole batch of them.

Dan:

Hey dude, you started the shite, not me., If you are above reading a
couple books and maybe learning a thing or two by going into the
archives, then that's your prerogative. I really don't care one way or
the other.

>Mark:
> I will be purchasing a Lila's Child and the Ph.D., to help me out.

Dan:
That's good. There is much value to be found in those documents. But
honestly, considering your posts, I still think you need to read ZMM
and LILA again. I've read each book a dozen times or more and always
find something I have overlooked. But that's just my opinion. Please
don't take it personally... I have made the same suggestion several
times over on this forum.

>Mark:
> Thanks for your understanding.

Dan:
I'm not sure I do understand when someone complains about reading
books or the archives. I am like a kid in a candy store when it comes
to that kind of stuff. But I suppose we each have our own experiences
and your experience must tell you that you already know all that, so
you don't need to read. So be it. To me, though, it is sad. And like I
said, it is your loss, not mine.

Dan