--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > P.S.: And even if he *hadn't* given the lie to this > > protestation by claiming his latest attack on me was > > "true" (even though it wasn't)... > > Judy, this is *not* an attack, merely a suggestion. > > It seems to me that an intelligent person who wanted > to "give the lie" to the suggestion that she does > nothing on this forum except reply to Other People's > Posts and quote Other People's Ideas might do so by > ...uh...posting something that was *not* a reply to > someone else's post, and that displayed some original > thought, thus demonstrating that she *does* have > something to say.
As I've already pointed out, it's absurd to suggest that somehow a reply to someone else's post cannot "display original thought." As you know, many of my replies do just that. And most of them do not just "quote Other People's Ideas." I vastly prefer conversation to tooting my own horn. Your mileage obviously varies. And don't get me started on what I think of the quality of the "original thought" in your posts. > You have two more posts left today in which to do so. > Or, you could reply angrily to this post and prove > my point. Your call. "Prove your point"? But you don't have a point to prove. As you just got done saying: > I DON'T KNOW THE "TRUTH." I DON'T EVEN > BELIEVE THERE IS SUCH A THING. THE ONLY > THING I HAVE IS THE OCCASIONAL SHORT- > LIVED OPINION. YOU CAN HAVE A DIFFERENT > ONE, AND IT'S NO SWEAT OFF MY BALLS. YOUR > OPINION IS JUST AS "GOOD" AND JUST AS > "VALID" AS MINE, AND *NEITHER* OF THEM > HAS ANYTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH "TRUTH." > > There. That's settled. :-)
