Lorazepam y 57. Conversion of lorazepam to valium. Ic lorazepam buspar. Lorazepam without prescription

Not about me, but Greg's B.S. attitude.

MacQuarie: "From what I can see, Greg dealt repeatedly with the real facts."

Then you are blind.

(Never said I was through with anybody but Greg. This damned site has been repeatedly closing my browser before I could get to the point of checking this board, which was not a high priority. Kept me from voting for the DC and Marvel favorite character list, too, and checking it WAS a high priority.)

Maybe this means he won't come back? One can hope.

From what I can see, Greg dealt repeatedly with the real facts, and you need to get the bloody screaming hell over yourself. I didn't know a thing about you at the start, but by the time I got to the bottom you had managed to convince me that you're a galloping flaming anus of epic proportion. Good job.

Thanks again for the kind words. Keep up the great writing!

Can’t help but notice how you have NEVER dealt with that.

Yes, that's right, Ted. I live in fear of being found out by the mighty Ted Watson, that he will proclaim to the entire internet that my expertise is all a sham.

Look. Your theory wasn't a theory. It was a dumb guess, made in an apparent effort to show off that you knew Donald Hamilton's Matt Helm books weren't like the movies. It was clear from what you wrote that this was ALL you knew, and that's what made it a dumb guess and not a 'blatantly obvious theory.' It should not have been mentioned as a possibility in the original article, despite all your long-winded reasoning to the contrary which -- as far as I can tell -- pretty much boils down to the fact that you feel you should have been spared the embarrassment of making a dumb guess. If I "deal with this," will you stop barking about it like a yappy little dog?

Point one. The word "Matt," capitalized, was written on the back of the painting. It was the beginning of a phrase, hence the capitalization. I do not think it was an editorial direction because book editors don't do that. They give direction to the artist in person, or in an enclosed letter, or, at most, in a note attached separately to the FRONT of a piece of commissioned art. A note on the BACK of a painting is much more likely to be a direction to the FRAMER, after the painting has been RETURNED TO THE ARTIST, as this one clearly was, and my guess is that it was simply a misspelling of 'matte.' This is how people treat painted illustrations for all media but most especially book and magazine art. How do I know this? Because I've been doing illustration professionally since 1984. Not famous, not collectible, just a guy doing a job, same as George Wilson did when he was working.

Point two. Your idea that the painting was rejected doesn't make sense because it was FINISHED. Painting isn't like watercolor or pen-and-ink illustration-- you can GO BACK. You have the freedom to paint things over, you can adjust, you can edit, AS IT'S BEING DONE. What you need to grasp about commercial art is that time is money and wasted time is WASTED money. There is nothing an illustrator hates more -- hell, any freelancer hates this -- than throwing work away or doing things over. George Wilson was a pro. He would have presented sketches, talked to his editor, made sure they were all on the same page, before ever laying a brushstroke down. If simple fixes were needed, he'd have done them and kept going. THIS IS A JOB.

Point three. The art looks nothing like anything ever done for a Helm book and the scene itself never took place in any of the stories. I knew this at a glance. Even if you did not, you could have taken five minutes with Google and looked... it took me thirty seconds to find the Matt Helm homepage I've already linked twice in these comments. That's hardly 'a bunch of research,' but whatever, if that's too much for you, there WAS the link at the top of the column. If you didn't use it, I refuse to take the blame for that. If I put a link up and you don't use it then I really think that's on you, especially since it would only have been DISPROVING A DUMB GUESS, for the reasons I've already stated, and not something 'blatantly obvious.'

Point four. You seem to think that I should have been more charitable about a Matt Helm guess because I used Donald Hamilton books to illustrate the piece. Alternatively, shouldn't you credit me with something more than a chimp's intelligence by assuming that if I'm using a certain author's books to illustrate the layout, then the probability is that author's books are already out of the running? That's every bit as logical a leap as the one you are yapping at me about not making. To be brutally honest, it never entered my mind that it was a Helm -- it occurred to me that it looked a little like the other NON-Helm books by Hamilton. So I glanced at mine and no, it was not one of them, and I checked online to make sure. Again, total expenditure of time -- less than ten minutes. Anyone could have done it. More of that horrible research you are complaining about me making readers do; hardly the same as bucking freight on a dock, and I DID offer a prize.

Is that sufficient? What more do you need?

Why didn't I get into all this to begin with? BECAUSE IT'S TRIVIAL AND STUPID AND A WASTE OF MY TIME when the simple answer should have been enough. But no, that can't be it, I must be evasive and deceitful and running away from an argument because I dared to contradict Ted Watson without providing a goddamned affidavit.

Now drop it, will you? I'm already annoyed I've wasted this much time on you. I freelance too and my time is worth more than this. And that really, really IS my last word.

When someone posts to me something to the effect of your, “it’s my last word,” it usually means that they’ve run out of even evasion–and–misrepresentation–based defense of their invalid position.

No. It means I think this whole argument is ridiculous and I'm bored now. I've explained why, spelled out in simple language in all caps. But one more time, because you apparently are ignoring every other time I've said this. My position is simply that I disagree with your assessment of events. I think your 'theory' was way off, and your condescending bewilderment at my not including it in the article was a ludicrously arrogant position to take. I spared you a lengthy discourse on why in my initial reply because I really didn't feel like getting into it. Period. The end. You can layer however much crap on top of that as you please, Ted, but that is my actual position: it's a trivial omission of no import to anyone but you and your hurt pride, and your dragging it out like this isn't making it less so. Repeating your arguments as though I didn't understand you or something isn't changing my mind on that, sorry. In fact it isn't really doing anything but making you look ridiculous. And yet you are still flailing away at it. How many more people have to point and laugh before it dawns on you?

Read it again. He wasn't, not on one point, which is what I was referring to. Specifically:
"A 'Yeah, good point, but I already thought of that,' from Greg should’ve been enough to close the matter." Should've been, yes, and would've been had he not implied he had completely failed to notice that part of my theory was that the painting was "rejected", and therefore would not BE on one of the books, anyway. Worse, he subsequently implied that I was an idiot for not knowing as full well as he did that it wasn't a good idea, which is exactly what the guy has claimed I did to him. I admit that I said, "I'm not clear as to how you failed to see this possibility," but the phrasing clearly leaves open the possibility that he had a good reason, and as he eventually admitted, he did consider, if only for an infinitesmal fraction of a second, and reject the idea. I still feel that he's added the mention of "the sketch/idea--pitching stage" retroactively, at the same time he deleted a crack at me (see below).

Greg: "As for the omitted post, it didn’t go up when I put it up. I wrote another one and it DID go up; when I returned, they were both there, so I removed the double post. Yes, I 'admit' it. Perhaps this victory will persuade you to let us all move on now. At any rate, it’s my last word on the matter."

Better not be, as it's got nothing to do with anything I'VE said. This eliminating a double posting thing has nothing to do with what I was talking about, and I can't see how you can possibly think so. Therefore, I won't insult your intelligence by describing that situation again (see the first of two long paragraphs in my Post #21 for details, if you really think that was relevant). I did not merely disagree with you as to whether or not you should have mentioned the Helm idea, but presented a very solid case as to why you should have done so, and your explanation as to why you should not have was a crock of bullshit, which I demonstrated. Can't help but notice how you have NEVER dealt with that. When someone posts to me something to the effect of your, "it's my last word," it usually means that they've run out of even evasion--and--misrepresentation--based defense of their invalid position.

As far as calling Greg's friend "an idiot" is concerned, to borrow from Thomas Jefferson, he was whether any of us said so or not, we might as well say so. And, MarkAndrew (I apologize for incorrectly adding an "S" to your name earlier; sorry) notwithstanding, I did not "go out of [my] way" to do so. I was here, the idiotic statement was here, and I merely pointed it out, since Greg's text so grossly underplayed its invalidity it was not at all clear that he understood how absurd it was. If somebody DOES have any further "word on the matter," I hope that it is not something that insults my intelligence with a pretense of factual accuracy and/or relevancy.

The Matt Helm books any good, or is there a reason they’ve been forgotten?

Well, I quite like them. But I like a lot of junk literature. They're not as good as Fleming's Bonds but they are often quite cleverly plotted and they have tremendous drive and exuberance.

This website sums it up much better than I could. Scroll down a bit once you're there for the full intro.

They starred Dean Martin. Doing his drunk act to the point where the scenery wasn't so much chewed as flammable. 'Nuff said.

(sorry, not trying to restart, just had no idea they were THAT rare).

All right, Ted. I will spell it out for you. I DISAGREE WITH YOU. I THINK YOU ARE MISTAKEN IN YOUR IDEA OF WHAT IS NECESSARY TO INCLUDE IN A COLUMN. I didn't FORGET to mention Matt Helm. I decided it was NOT WORTH MENTIONING. You disagree. Okay. Fine. But that's all it is.

Your monomaniacal insistence that my "blatant" omission of a spy series so obscure hardly anyone remembers the movies let alone the novels-- have you noticed that pretty much no one but you and I even remember the books, and that I seem to be the only one that actually has seen them?-- that this constitutes some sort of hideous mistake, and that the fact I used a couple of Hamiltons to illustrate the layout I was describing somehow confirms this, does not seem to me to be compelling evidence to change my mind. You asked, I answered, that should have been the end of it. Instead, here we all still are. Which tends to confirm my assessment that your real interest here is, as usual, 'catching' us in something, and that yes, it's still annoying.

As for the omitted post, it didn't go up when I put it up. I wrote another one and it DID go up; when I returned, they were both there, so I removed the double post. Yes, I "admit" it. Perhaps this victory will persuade you to let us all move on now. At any rate, it's my last word on the matter.

He's going into ChuckG territory, I'd say.

I thought the remarks about his social skills would have made it obvious.

Did you read MarkAndrews’ comment, post #18, about your attitude there?

Just to clarify, as I just re-read this thread, pretty certain Mark was coming out for Greg there dude.