Fw: Cob: Re: New cob book (The Book)

[Ric Allan]

Darel,

  I suggest yo go back and read YOUR original post.  Pretend YOU had just
written the book.

  The statements you started out with and the tone seemed like a
condemnation to me...   statements like I haven't read it yet BUT..  don't
come across like a simple request for others opinions of the book.  Why
didn't you just ask for input on it.  WE don't need to know your secret
fears to respond with the information you seek.


-----Original Message-----
From: Darel Henman <henman at it.to-be.co.jp>
To: Ocean <ocean at peacemaking.org>
Cc: coblist at deatech.com <coblist at deatech.com>
Date: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 4:54 AM
Subject: Re: Cob: Re: New cob book (The Book)


>Ocean,
>
>Thanks for your review of the book, but when considering your infantile
>and banal attack on my request for objective information about the book,
>I'd say you were far from objective.
>
>> Now, Darel, regarding your nasty reaction (aka tantrum) to a SINGLE
>> word - "philosophy" - in the title and blurb about The Book, which you
>> felt warranted SLAMMING
>
>Nothing was slammed, shallow Ocean, read with understanding please.
>
>> a piece of work you haven't even browsed, let
>> alone read,
>Which I clearly stated in my request for information.
>
>> and which aforementioned nasty reaction (aka tantrum)
>
>Neh, my mail was a request for information, yours was written while in a
>tantrum it seems, and we must all ask why you wrote that way.
>
>> you
>> felt was so appropriate that you shared it with a whole listserv of
>> folks who are dedicated to the OPEN-MINDED SHARING of information on cob
>> building
>
>Precisely, but, about cob, my dear, not how to comtemplate my navel or
>how to acquire a 4 x 4 post, or any other building material.
>
>> ...if this is the way you feel, please REMOVE yourself from our
>> list!
>
>Ocean, it seems that I smell a weasel.
>Please control yourself and clearly state your relationship to the
>authors of the book.  It seems that they are friends of yours.  Remove
>yourself from this debate, as you have a conflict of interest and are
>not objective.
>
>Darel
>
>> I mean, you are so CLUELESS!
>
>Clueless?  To what?
>
>>
>> Phew, having gotten that off my chest, let me try to be "objective".
>
>Ah, so now you try to be objective?
>
>I'll not comment on the usage of the word movement.  Your usage speaks
>for itself.
>
>Darel
>