[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>> DUNCE: Actually, "in short,"  you've made a Liar of yourself... again.   
   >>>   
   >>> MMP: I have provided a step-by-step outline of the events, exactly as they   
   went down, above, DUNCE.  Which one are you claiming is a lie?   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> DUNCE: Earth to Peabrain: this is my first comment on your "outline" (which   
   you were actually calling a "review"). I couldn't have claimed any of it was a   
   lie before I'd commented on it.   
   >>   
   >> MMP: WTF sort of Dunce Logic is that?  The usual procedure is for one to   
   call a lie a lie, and *then,* having identified it as such, proceed to back it   
   up.   
   >>   
   >> DUNCE: My calling you a liar was in reference to lies you'd previously told   
   in this thread (summarized above), which you did try to expunge from your   
   outline/review/book/play or whatever else you feel like calling it.   
   >   
   >   
   > MMP: Your calling me a liar was predicated by my having called you one first.   
   >   
   > As per your admitted m.o. of "Tit for Tat" (a.k.a., IKYABWAI).   
   >   
   > I call you a liar, so you call me a liar.   
   >   
   > I call you a thief, so you call me a thief.   
   >   
   > NancyGene called you a plagiarist, so you call NancyGene a plagiarist.   
   >   
   > Like I said, you're not only a book, you're an Easy Reader.   
      
      
      
   George Dunce is an Easy Reader that never goes under the cover.   
      
      
   This is a response to the post seen at:   
   http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=699604738#699604738   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)