--- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Aug 28, 2007, at 9:28 PM, authfriend wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], "lurkernomore20002000" > > <steve.sundur@> wrote: > > <snip> > > > Judy will never realize that what others take as meaningless > > > inconsistencies are for her great conquests to be strutted out into > > > the collesium. > > > > Lurk, think about this for a minute: > > > > If the inconsistencies I pointed out in Barry's > > various versions of his tale about Charlie Lutes > > are "meaningless," why do you think he went > > ballistic when I called attention to them? > > Uh, maybe because he was utterly flabbergasted that > anyone could so willingly stalk his every word?
Jeez, Vaj, is that the best you can do? Lessee now, I think you "accidentally" left out the rest of what I wrote: "Why did he decide to make an 'exception' to his current policy of not responding to my posts? "Why did he attempt a detailed, lengthy, point-by- point rebuttal, claiming (falsely) that I had deliberately distorted the context?" Think these were because he was "utterly flabbergasted that anyone could so willingly stalk his every word?" (Is that as opposed to UNwillingly stalking his every word?) <belly laugh>
