From: ScottW48@hotmail.com   
      
   On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 8:23:30 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:   
   > On 10/8/23 9:30 PM, Art Sackman wrote:    
   > > 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.   
   > It's not your post. It's Scott's and he said, "So you can't even try to    
   > address my points," when I did in fact address his points.   
      
   No, in fact you did not.   
      
   ScottW   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)