From: wally@wally.world.net
On 15/4/05 23:42, in article BE852EFF.12050%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
"Snit" wrote:
> "Wally" stated in post
> BE85CB6A.9FB0%wally@wally.world.net on 4/15/05 4:48 AM:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 15/4/05 16:29, in article BE859C24.9F16%wally@wally.world.net, "Wally"
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> I made an error an admitted to it... and yet you and others troll me over
>>>> it.> I can see where others would be hesitant to admit to such errors in
>>>> CSMA based on the reaction you give them. Maybe Elizabot expects me to
>>>> react like you, and therefore she is afraid to admit to her errors and
>>>> apologize.
>>
>> It is my opinion that if Elizabot were to make an honest mistake which is
>> what you claim to have done, her approach would differ from yours in at
>> least one fundamental aspect, she would explain how she could have made such
>> an error, you have been asked to explain how you could possibly get the idea
>> that you had identified an ip pointing back to Elizabot by viewing an image,
>> you have never, nor will you ever explain exactly how you arrived at that
>> idea, because, and here is another difference between you, your error was
>> not arrived at honestly, it was simply a lie....pure and simple.
>
> In your opinion.
Yes you read it correctly..." It is my opinion that....."
>
> Funny thing is, though, you admit that Elizabot has admitted to at least one
> mistake (though you will not say which one!) and she has not even
> apologized, no less explained it.
Wrong! Elizabot hasn't to my knowledge admitted to a mistake, imo what she
has admitted to is so far removed from a mistake that the word isn't on the
same page.
> The facts do not fit your beliefs...
They do.
> so you will simply play silly games.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
