From: arthursackman@gmail.com   
      
   On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 3:03:14 PM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   Your post still stands on the record.   
   Stop being such a crybaby.   
   I have no obligation to replicate your earlier post, being   
   that it still stands.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)