On Oct 13, 9:06 pm, The Historian wrote:
On Oct 13, 11:12 am, Rob wrote:



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.

There was nothing to graze.

Phil has tried to explain why what was written

would not hold to the character of PT.

Sorry, that one already made the list. Do you agree, Mike?

WHat (sic) he writes is summarily

discounted because of a personal avarice hels (sic) towards him be one or
more posters here.

Personal "avarice?" Is there another 35K "deal memo" in the works?

It is a pity that people who wish to pose as

rational and thoughtful come accross (sic) 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! :-)

How it felt to the folks on the depression newsgroup you posted your
false statement to hasn't been discussed.

Snipped remainder sorry and soggy pleading from an associate of
Truong.

Neil,
I has tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and I have NOT
attacked you, belittled you, condemned you in any way shape or form.
Why you continue to attack me when I have not attacked you or Mike or
anyone except Sloan is beyond me.
You try to silence discussion on any topic that the opinion does not
coincide with yours by way of personal attacks. What kind of person
would do that?

Nothing in what I saw of the Mottershead posting would I consider
condemning to Paul. To the contrary, I think it does more to vindicate
him.

Rob