From: pianoforte109@yahoo.com   
      
   On 10/2/23 1:19 PM, Art Sackman wrote:   
   > On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 10:36:39 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:   
   >> On 9/30/23 12:55 AM, Art Sackman wrote:   
   >>> On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:24:05 PM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:   
   >>>> On 9/29/23 6:14 PM, ScottW wrote:   
   >>>>> On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 12:07:57 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 9/29/23 10:58 AM, ScottW wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> In this case...   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> The topic is Jack Smith.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> So you can't even try to address my points.   
   >>>>> Why am I not surprised?   
   >>>> You snipped me addressing your point.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> It showed up in your post. No need to keep repeating   
   >>> the pas conversations.   
   >>>   
   >>> When I snip your old stuff, I also snip my own.   
   >> I was addressing Scott.   
   >   
   > I was supporting Scott   
      
   Well, then, I'll explain that the objection follows snipping a response   
   then saying I didn't respond. This is dishonest and objectionable.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)