--- In [email protected], "lurkernomore20002000" <steve.sun...@...> wrote: > > Wow, I really dislike having to carry things to this extent. > But for the record, you did reproduce two of the posts,
Only one, actually. I picked that one because Sal's part of it was self-contained. But the rest were all along the same lines in scoffing at anything the National Enquirer reported. > and gave numbers for the rest. If someone wishes to ignore > that, or be "too busy" to read posts for today, then I guess > that is where it stays. But in your post #243746 today at > 9:59 am, they are laid out. My guess is we won't see Sal around here for a while. > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > Lurk: > > > > No, I really don't care to > > > > > > Because you can't--they don't exist. > > > > Ah, but they do. > > > > > And In "true fashion," you don't have courage to own up to it. > > > Care to bring up the posts? I didn't think so. > > > > I just did, not quite an hour before this post of Sal's. > > Will she have the courage to own up to them? Will she have > > the decency to apologize to Lurk for having falsely accused > > him of having made them up and not having the courage to > > admit it? > > > > Perhaps she carefully avoided reading my posts. If so, it > > would be a kindness for someone to clue her in. > > > > But holding one's breath for an acknowledgment and apology > > from Sal is probably not a great idea.
