--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > Not only did Curtis not come to me in an open, > > > straightforward manner, the dishonesty of his > > > response was even greater than that of his > > > original bogus comparison. > > > > > > That comparison was offensive and insulting, a > > > deliberate attempt at guilt by association. > > > There were all sorts of comparisons he *could* > > > have made on the basis you suggest above > > > ("incomplete information and ignorance") that > > > would have been entirely unproblematic and > > > would have made his point a lot more clearly. > > > > > > That you *support* him in the comparison he did > > > make, and in his dishonest responses to my > > > pointing out how offensive it was, tells me, as > > > I say, all I need to know about your own > > > intellectual integrity. > > > > > > "May not be 100% congruent," indeed. > > > > > > Excuse me while I go take a bath. > > > > After 36 -- now 37 -- posts like this in less > > than four days, I think the people who need > > a bath are us. > > > > Have a good time in limbo, Judy, inflicting > > your venom on those who have to put up with > > it between now and Friday midnight. We don't. > > I went over accidentally, but I'm going to go > ahead and increment my sin by one more post > before I leave for the weekend, to point out > that: > > (1) About a third of my posts here this week have > been positive or at least not unpleasant. > > (2) Of the negative ones, the great majority > were in response to Barry's or Vaj's *unprovoked* > attacks on me. > > In other words, Barry is lying through his > teeth again, as well as attacking me one more > time without provocation, and bathing himself > in the grossest kind of hypocrisy.
Buh-bye now!
