Originally posted by ozstamps:
Well Nathan Detroit …. we are told elsewhere your name is not Nathan and you are not from Detroit.
A quick search at
ask.com reveals ...
Based on Damon Runyon's short story "The Idyll of Miss Sarah Brown," Guys and Dolls revolves around Nathan Detroit, the organizer of the oldest established permanent floating crap game in New York, who bets fellow gambler Sky Masterson that he can't make the next girl he sees fall in love with him. The next girl he sees happens to be Miss Sarah Brown, a pure-at-heart Salvation Army-type reformer, and the stage is set for an hilarious evening of complications.
Hope this provides a little insight into Nate's handle.
Contrary to the subtext of this statement ...
Others with presumably wiser heads than yours are this morning urging posters on other boards to stick to TRAVEL related postings, not flames, or personal attacks, and they are succeeding, and yet you lob in with this one, despite that clear lead.
... N.D. posted here in all seriousness, Oz. He even prefaced his intentions about his query,
clearly stating ...
Originally posted by nathan detroit:
Mind you I am just asking a question, not insulting you and trying to get into the ring with you. I just don't understand why and I think there are many others who have the same question.
If you wouldn't mind, Oz, I'd like to know as well: Just what is your purpose here?
Contradicting yourself in the same post ...
I politely point out to you this is the Randy Petersen forum...
... but then asserting ...
Maybe this is the time to set a few standards around here?
Uh uh uhhh. You can't have it both ways, kiddo. No appealling to authority (Randy's) on the one hand and then suggesting someone implement policy on the other when it suits you.
In your defense, Ozstamps, you most certainly have contributed in very positive ways on some threads. For example, the background on Altbier was very informative as was the Hilton thread your refer to above. I'm also mystified why anyone had a problem with that thread. It was new info for a lot of folks.
Sadly, I doubt you'll engage me in any kind of real discussion about the other points I've brought up. It's been great bantering with you about mileage runs, typograpical etymology, beer, etc., so why do you avoid my posts that point out you're logical fallacies or contradictions? I thought you'd be the first to engage in a friendly battle of wits, seeing as though you launch so many salvos yourself. I guess
ad hominem attacks is the best you can do. What a shame.
[This message has been edited by essxjay (edited 09-08-2000).]