No need to continue this thread

No need to continue this thread

Post by Peter Beat » Thu, 25 Sep 2003 06:12:47



Okay, you got me. I shouldn't be doing this, but let's just get this
straight:


she most likely did read the thread, i will accept your view and
conclude she is dishonest."

For me, that's tantamount to saying she's a liar. Where, exactly, did
you go out of your way to avoid that impression?


that she was, in fact, a liar."

Where did I attack you? I said: "To presume otherwise will, under the
circumstances, be perceived as plain arrogance." That was, obviously, a
plain observation of fact, given that your comments were so perceived by
two people before me.

Two straight questions from me -- two straight answers from you, please.

--
Peter
 
 
 

No need to continue this thread

Post by james g. k » Thu, 25 Sep 2003 06:59:40

Peter Beattie < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > wrote in






in the text that read

"the initial suggestion was my effort to excuse
her misrepresentation, which i hoped was the result of ignorance
rather than dishonesty. if you assert that i am probably wrong
and
she most likely did read the thread, i will accept your view and
conclude she is dishonest. thanks for letting me know."

interesting you deleted that part with no indication of your
deletion.

that's ok. you got in a bit over your head when it wasn't
necessary. by now you might even recognize what the events were
on which you commented.

to clarify, i would have preferred that her comments were the
result of ignorance rather than dishonesty. you refuted the
ignorance possibility.

[...]