On Oct 13, 9:11 am, Mike Murray wrote:
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 07:49:43 -0700, Mike Murray

wrote:
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 05:32:38 -0700, The Historian
wrote:

In case it's not obvious, I was responding to Phil. The Historian
had quoted a long chunk of Phil's detritus and I should have pointed
by newsreader one click up the chain.

My apologies, Neil.

I wasn't aware I had recused myself. Anyway.. Mike demonstrated the
point I was trying to make and Neil grazed the evidence but didn't
quite get it full face. Phil has tried to explain why what was written
would not hold to the character of PT. WHat he writes is summarily
discounted because of a personal avarice hels towards him be one or
more posters here. It is a pity that people who wish to pose as
rational and thoughtful come accross like that.

Mike can be very honest at times when the evidence is clear. eg the
"Prozac" boat incident that left one detractor of mine looking silly
as the fell into my trap! :-)

So, if you can get past your personal distaste for me, look at my
suggestions closely and use an honest brain and unbiased logic to
determine the validity or the evidence when purported to argue against
Paul.

If you honestly will remove the emerald colored glasses and put aside
envy, I feel certain rationality will prevail.

FYI : This posting is not directed to or against any particular
individual.
Rob