On nov 12 Eyeswideshit writes the following, (in response to GH's response to his [eyeswideshut's] earlier commentary).
" Author: Eyeswideshut (---.not.ntl.com)
Date: 11-12-00 18:09
It certainly looks as though I have touched a nerve?
Funny how you have never met me and yet you suggest that I hate you, I am an idiot and that my life is one of abject failure. Did I ever attack you with such character insults? My apologies if I did. "
yes, eyeswideshut, you did attack GH and your comments were grossly unfair and mean-spirited. read your own words.
in a clearly mocking reference of graham hancock you say...
"I'm interested in making millions by writing a book about the theories surrounding the chicken and the egg. Many of my theories will no doubt be taken from others and many will be nothing more than a wild stab in the dark. Should I waste readers' time by printing theories that can be disproved after only a little further reading on the subject...even if 'a few' of my theories turn out to be right? After all I want to beef my book out with several hundred pages to make the public think that they are getting their money's worth. As I see it, the more theories I present, the more chance I have of a successful outcome. After all, even when wearing a blindfold I can still pin a tail on a donkey...eventually.
Should we really pity the multi-millionaire author, Graham Hancock, when critics head in for the kill?"
and for this you have the unmitigated gall to say, "Did I ever attack you with such character insults?"
how in the world can a you purport not to know that this isn't the height of cyncism and slander. given the fact that your grammer is good i cannot assume for one moment that you are unaware of your bitchy rhetoric. you exude intelligence as well as a major chip on your shoulder. both are clearly evident between the lines.
so, what does this amount to then?
in my opinion, your entire attack is indicative of a bitter individual who does resent gh's success. futhermore, your uncoordinated attempts to sidestep your own culpability make you appear as a coward of the smelliest rank.
eyeswideshut, sorry folks like yourself would like to think they somehow have the "moral" right to single-out and unfairly attack truly successful people. that's totally wrong, dude. and it's also totally wrong for you to think that successful people like graham shouldn't exercise the right to tell you to shove it. au contraire, i applaud him for his courage in calling you on your @!#$.
is graham hancock a victim of such small-minded vitriol? i don't know for a fact, but i would bet you a million dollars that he is, and on a continuous basis. your embittered cheapshots, ews, only strengthen that hypothesis. if my hunch is right, i would say that graham has a very legitimate right to openly speculate that many of the people who do attack him (in the manner in which you did) are failures.
yes, eyeswideshut, you should apologize. but more to the point, you should take your own apology to heart. why do i say this? because the overall tone of your 'apology' letter is clearly disengenuous.
grow up and get over being a normal person, dude. it really ain't that bad.
|Eyes Wide Shut . . . slander||354||mark grant||15-Nov-00 01:19|
|RE: Eyes Wide Shut . . . slander||156||Michael||15-Nov-00 09:58|
|RE: Eyes Wide Shut . . . slander||141||Eyeswideshut||17-Nov-00 09:25|
|RE: Eyes Wide Shut . . . slander||132||Michael||17-Nov-00 12:25|
|RE: Eyes Wide Shut . . . slander||180||mark grant||23-Nov-00 02:56|
|RE: Eyes Wide Shut . . . slander||161||Gabrielle||19-Nov-00 20:03|