--- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> > 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.
OK. You said you didn't want to know "where that coloring came from." So I am not reaching my conclusions out of > ignorance. I have different opinions than you do on this. I'd be interested to know on what basis, but I'm sure you're not going to tell me. 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. >
