> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: Dan Minette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Verzonden: dinsdag 30 april 2002 23:30 > Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Onderwerp: Debunking: a blast from the past
> > Sorry, Dan, but so far you have not shown anything that can be > > interpreted as me saying that I should not have been expected to have > > read a specific post. > > Well, let me walk you through the trail. I will do it one step at a > time to keep things short. > > In post 73988 (Aug. 15, 2001 at 5PM) I define debunk <snip definition> > Is is fair to say that this is a clear definition? IMHO, it shows why > someone who uses the word debunk in an arguement should expect to > have to meet a very high standard for proof. Do you argee? If not, > why not? I am not arguing about the correctness of your definition. The issue is that you attribute a statement to me that you cannot reproduce from the archive. Jeroen _________________________________________________________________________ Wonderful World of Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com Tom's Photo Gallery: http://tom.vanbaardwijk.com
