Vince Hart wrote (9 May 2005
11:09:42 -0700):
A typical Blairbot tactic: a vague
allegation about "inappropriate"
conduct followed by a refusal to
explain.
_
I wrote (9 May 2005 11:35:19 -0700):
Vince Hart's summary leaves out
the detail that I told him exactly
where he could find the explanation
that I have already provided.
_
Vince Hart (10 May 2005 18:21:32 -0700):
What could be more fair than a verbatim
quote Louis? Isn't that the principle
behind your copious quoting?
_
I wrote (11 May 2005 11:42:57 -0700):
Vince Hart did not put a verbatim quote
after the words,
_
"A typical Blairbot tactic: ..."
_
What he did put after those words is
quoted above along with my comment.
_
Vince Hart wrote (11 May 2005
12:04:20 -0700):
I did [not] claim that I put the verbatim
quote after those words Louis. I put the
verbatim quote immediately before those
words you moronic twit.
_
I wrote (11 May 2005 13:12:13 -0700):
My opinion is that the words,
_
"A typical Blairbot tactic: ..."
_
should have been followed with a fair
description of my tactic.
_
Vince Hart wrote (13 May 2005
10:15:42 -0700):
Since you failed to answer my question
Louis, I must assume that you agree
that a verbatim quote is a fair
description of the tactic. This
leaves you maintaining the inane
position that I should have quoted
your tactic, then commented upon it,
and then quoted it again.
_
I wrote (14 May 2005 10:28:00 -0700):
Nonsense. I did not write that Vince
Hart should have quoted my tactic again.
I only wrote that, in my opinion, the
words,
_
"A typical Blairbot tactic: ..."
_
should have been followed with a fair
description of my tactic. A fair
description would have been possible
without repeating the quote.

Vince Hart wrote (16 May 2005
06:31:49 -0700):
Don't be silly Louis (or at least don't be
any sillier than usual). Given the
frequency with which you accuse me
(and many others) of getting your
positions wrong, there is no reason to
believe that anything other than a
verbatim quote would satisfy you as
a fair description.

_
Vince Hart may choose to believe that
nothing other than a repetition of the
quote would have satisfied me, but that
is no excuse for him claiming that I
have ever maintained the position that
the quote should have been repeated.
I have, in fact, not maintained that
position and it is to be hoped that,
in the future, Vince Hart will distinguish
betweeen the positions that I have
maintained and what he imagines
that I want.

On Sun, 15 May 2005 at 06:05 -0000, Mike Nolan scribbled:
-Fred Lucite [sic] ... writes:
--If we look at what the ED/EB each year is willing to accept as
--their correct financials we will probably find the USCF was prof-
--itable every year even as it kept losing money. I'm not sure you
--could pick one correction of the audited financials without every-
--body else coming back and demanding further "corrections".

I'm shocked that your software deleted the proper attribution for
that "quote." I would suggest that you should recheck your configura-
tion settings or possibly check into finding a better newsreader pro-
gram. In point of fact, I (posting under the munged header-handle of
"Fred Lucite") did not write that "quote." The "quote" above was in
fact written by Tom Martinak and posted on Sunday, May 8 at 14:43 -700.
That was clearly stated at the beginning of my citation but somehow
your software deleted it.
--
----------------------------------------------
david moeser -- erasmus39 on yahoo
Censornati, Ohio - USA
----------------------------------------------
* If you can read this, you're too close! *

(Headers munged to foil spammers; real info in taglines)

Fred Lucite writes:

I'm shocked that your software deleted the proper attribution for
that "quote."

Given the extent to which you munge your own identity, I'm surprised
you give a damn about whether you were quoted or not.
--
Mike Nolan