--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@>
> wrote:
> <snip>
> > > > Nothing 'exceptionally dishonest' about it- where *that*
> > > > coloring came from I don't know...and don't *want* to know...
> > >
> > > That's the problem, you *don't want to know*.
> > >
> > > "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts."
> > >
> > Facts?
> >
> > Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a fact as such:
> <snip>
> > 3 a : something that has actual existence <space exploration
> > is now a fact> b : an actual occurrence <prove the fact of
> > damage>
>
> 3b, an actual occurrence: I made some posts about
> Curtis's post and his replies to my posts, in which
> I gave my reasons for calling Curtis's post and his
> replies dishonest.
>
> You don't want to know the facts of "where that
> coloring came from," i.e., the facts of what my
> posts said.
>
> Whether what I said was factual or opinion is a
> different issue. The facts in question are *what*
> I said, which is what you don't want to know,
> because your mind is made up.
>
I read your posts to Curtis and your reasons, and you have reached
fundamentally different conclusions with regard to your interaction
with Curtis than I have. So I am not reaching my conclusions out of
ignorance. I have different opinions than you do on this. And yes,
my mind is made up on this. Therefore no need to revisit your
reasons. If I did, I'd still reach different conclusions than you
have, because my mind is made up on this.
