I’m reading “Corky” equals Bowser. To help you through this “identity crisis” I am not acknowledging that, at all. It’s just that your post did.

<When the air cleared a bit I went for what seemed to me to be the next logical step. It think intellectual honesty requires an admission of a mistake when one is made. So, I requested that. However, I did so in a manner which I telegraphed would make it hard for people to admit the truth of the facts. Lo and behold, there were no admissions of error about denial of facts. Really surprised me, to be honest with you.>

"Ah, but the strawberries! That's, that's where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes, but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, and with, with geometric logic, that, that a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox did exist."

B: I don’t follow your “Caine Mutiny” analogy, but I don’t know it well. Did I somehow force people to deny facts? Was it unfair? All anyone would have had to say is “Very interesting facts. Are they connected, do they flow, is there any conclusion you are drawing? If so, in my opinion your conclusion couldn’t be more wrong.

<There was (is) a pony beneath all that horse manure, and all people could see was the manure.>

B: The above is out of context. My point was that there was an honest offer, on the order of “If I can prove the sun rises in the East, would you agree it does?”

"Queeg appeals to his officers for help and understanding, but is greeted with silence."

F: Hey man, You want understanding, you got it. I don't want Jose Ferrer tossing a drink in my face when you are gone.:)

B: Where did I ask for that? I did ask for honesty. I don’t know about Jose Ferrer. (I can shamelessly name drop, without the name, about the Broadway production of The Caine Mutiny, though. The father of a woman I was engaged to for years was an actor in it, used to play Scrabble with Henry Fonda when they weren’t on stage. That was before my time, though.)

<Have I called anyone an “asshole”? Nope, but it’s all right if it’s done to me, because I was arrogant. Do I care? Guess. But again that is the mentality of lynch mobs.>

F: Technically not accurate. The Title was Anatomy of an asshole. 25-30 people were mentioned and I left it to the reader to discern the asshole. It could've been me. Does this sound familiar and how honest is this?

B: Clintonesque, and in my opinion, flagrantly dishonest. And the questions you asked me I answered “yes” or “no”. I answered them directly.

<Do people lie about me? Your post does.>

F: Really, where? My words are clearly opinion.

B: (Quoting) “As if anyone cared, Corky often pompously asserts that he doesn’t even read certain posters.”

First, to be honest, it's "Bowser. Next find where Bowser “often” pompously denies he reads certain “posters”. Find ‘em and I’ll retract my assertion, pompous or otherwise, that this is a lie about me. It’s an honesty thing again. If you don't find it, what do you think you owe me?

<There are a few folks around here who have been instructed in the matter of divulging information. I have, and I’ve taught “Theory and Practice of Confidentiality”. No information. None.>

F: Come on now, if you have really worked in information exchange you know that your confidentiality is a commodity worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it.

B: What? I don't know what "information exchange" is, by the way. Unless there is a meaning here I don’t understand, the statement seems to say that because secrets can be purchased no one should keep them. Silly. My interest was in only divulging the information which was intended, not more or less, and finding out as much as possible from the other guy. Psychologists and psychiatrists have it easy – they just don’t talk about a situation – no information. For some people who have to divulge some things and not others, it can be a bit trickier.

F: I agree to the reasonable and prudent part but it is hard to maintain over a period of time.

B: “Reasonable and prudent” is a phrase which conveys information beyond the words to people who would look.

F: Do you keep a record of all your posts? I don't keep mine.

B: Of course not, but I do generally know what I want to say, and what I don’t. Some of what I don't want to say stays stable over time.

<So, this may not be the response your post deserves, and it’s the one it gets. And as far as being arrogant, obnoxious I have been. And, in my humble opinion, while your post is factually correct about my attitudes, it is as arrogant as I have been and eggregiously erroneous in addition. In content, not tone. Mine were arrogant in tone, not content.>

F: I keep telling you it is all about perception.

B: Well, then, I could perceive this message as someone denying they called me an asshole and and saying they had not lied about me when in fact they had done both. I would be accurate as far as I went, I believe.

I could also consider it a thoughtful response to a thoughtful reply to your flame. That would also be true, and certainly overrides the above sentence, though I think the Clinton-like denial is unbecoming. Your second post was a welcome surprise, mostly.

<Disliking someone requires too much of my energy to have a long shelf life. It will be up to you to stoke the fire. You won't stoke it with your opinions but a general perception of gamesmanship and intellectual snobbery will not be welcome even if it is tolerated.>

B: What you think of me is really none of my business. And I certainly don’t blame anyone for resenting the gamesmanship. However, you seem to believe my expecting honesty is “intellectual snobbery" and I will continue to do that, as I have with you in this post. I guess that’s just a difference in opinion.

Overall I certainly appreciate your post. Well done! 4.0. You're a good man.

Arf