Gary Osborn wrote:

> I would suggest you go back and watch Sesame Street seeing as
> you know a lot about it.

With 5 kids I should now something about it.

> "What expectation?"
>
> What I would expect from someone whose whole tone of
> expression is arrogant, intimidating and provocative -
> especially the rather personal way in which you approach the
> subject of Scott's and my work and will dismiss - actually,
> 'attack' - anything that doesn't agree with your own beliefs or
> views.

Not true but that never seems to stop some.

> I gather that you are a subscriber to the 'Hall of Maat'
> website, and that says it all really. A website, whose name
> stands for 'balance' and truth and whose members like to view
> themselves as 'balanced' in the quest for that truth; when any
> intelligent person can gather from what passes on there to be
> mostly a gross imbalance of belief and opinion with the scales
> weighed heavily on the left-brain side of things.

So what you are saying is since I go to the HoM website I am biased, idiotic, not overly bright, delusional and arrogant?
Wow, such sweet endearments! Good thing you're so sweet and understanding.

>Another
> example of human folly - people fooling and deluding themselves
> that they are balanced and have the onus on reason and 'right
> thinking'.

And you think that is limited to a single website that you do not like?
Pot-Kettle-BLACK. lol
Blinders, indeed.


> why should Scott and I have to put up with all these derogatory
> remarks about making money from the books, when that's the way
> of the world despite our views about it.

Again, to clarify to you as you seem to not have read what I wrote, I said nothing of you but that I predicted long ago that Scott's ultimate reason for his doodles and word games was for a book to make money.
Time has proven me right.

Love how that last parts reads as if any money made of this "book" was against all you two stood/stands for in life. Really? IF the money is made "despite your views of the way of the world" then five it to charity, simple really.

When you rebut me at least get it accurate and in direct response to what I actually wrote. Weak attempts to tie me to a website you can't hang with or like or HATE doesn't change the fact of my prediction about Scott and his doodles way back when.

Good day!