"Louis Blair" wrote in message
ups.com...
I wrote (31 Oct 2006 21:32:34 -0800):
7 "... If it were private then it would break a confidence
7 to speak about it publicly, right? ..." - Phil Innes (Thu,
7 15 Aug 2002 20:28:26 -0500)
7
7 "... I said I will not make private conversation public. ..."
7 - Phil Innes (Sat, 17 Aug 2002 09:41:08 -0500)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 01 Nov 2006 14:31:51 GMT):

7 Unless it is indecent, conspiratorial, breaks the law, or
7 actively causes mischief and harm.

_
Which of these does Phil Innes actually claim to be
in the private communication.

You will have toi wai Louis, then it will not be a 'claim' and you can make
up your own mind about it.

Just a little while ago,
Phil Innes was referring to what he perceived as
"[unremitting] spite". Does Phil Innes claim anything
SPECIFIC other than that?

Other than 'unremitting spite'? lol - Why soes Louis suggest this is
insufficient motive?


Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 01 Nov 2006 14:31:51 GMT):

7 Let us suppose that Louis Blair would let you die in your
7 burning house, rather than rescue you, since to cross
7 the threshold would be trespassing, which he would not
7 do anymore than he would honour the context of anything.

_
Is Phil Innes expecting us to believe that he is doing
something comparable to rescuing Taylor Kingston
from a burning house?

No Louis - I don;t expect you - or we, as you refer to yourself, to
understand anything. I am responding to your own query, by way of saying
that you would not cross a threshold under any circumstances, since you
can't yourself conceive any reason to post private messages, not even if
lives depended on it. Its satire you see, and most people will have
understood me the first time, though I know its going to take you 57,000
words of your own to come to it.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 01 Nov 2006 14:31:51 GMT):

7 Blair of course has cut the final quote, because
7 honest-Louis didn't like to report the condition attached
7 to it - since he would rather try to stop this investigation
7 by his usual means of combining any old contexts to
7 embarrass a poster, than actually address the issue.

_
Would Phil Innes care to be specific about the condition

No. Would Blair care not to snip phrases from complee sentences and
contexts? NO! He does not. He likes to cheat this way, which is his own
subterannean means of getting attention by a little falsity.

that was supposedly "attached" to the final quote? There
was no reference to the communication being decent,
nonconspiratorial, legel, and lacking mischief and harm
in the Sat, 17 Aug 2002 09:41:08 -0500 Phil Innes note.

I see! So Louis now takes the recent statement and compares that with the
old one, and cannot conclude on the specific words, so decides it is...

TROLL!!

Phil Innes