Post a response:
|
What about the message? Your entire attempted character assassination has nothing to do with the issues that were presented, or the materials that were linked. Even if your target has horns and breathes fire, it is the issues that should be addressed in a legitimate response, not secondhand personal grievances which may be imaginary. Your "colleague" (if he exists) cannot be much of a professional if he is so immature as to delegate to an anonymous crony the discussion on this forum of a private email (if one even exists, there is "no vestige of supporting evidence") purportedly concerning interpersonal differences. Is this auspicious supposed colleague of yours incapable of speaking for himself? The writings of your intended victim are quite out in the open, and even though his name has been blocked here by the cogs (presumably to implement Rule 4), it is well known, as is his personal web site which provides links to his writings over the past dozen years, some of which are in print, and as such he obviously cannot "constantly . . . modify the substance and presentation." If you (or your perhaps imaginary "colleague") want to argue about his specific positions on this forum, you certainly have the right to do so. But your scurrilous objective of killing the messenger only emphasizes the shallowness and irrelevance - if not falsity - of your invective. |