--- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Aug 28, 2007, at 9:47 PM, authfriend wrote: > > > "Why did he decide to make an 'exception' to his > > current policy of not responding to my posts? > > > Really Judy, there are probably college-level writing classes in the > north Jersey area. Community colleges can be quite inexpensive. > > Here we go again kids: > > flabbergast |ËflabÉrËgast| |ËfløbÉrËgøst| |ËflabÉgÉ`Ëst| > verb [ trans. ] [usu. as adj. ] ( flabbergasted) informal > surprise (someone) greatly; astonish : this news has left me totally > flabbergasted. > ORIGIN late 18th cent.: of unknown origin. > > Uh....maybe you greatly astonished him? Sometimes stalking > behavior is greatly astonishing to their victims...
Snipped again by Vaj: "Why did he attempt a detailed, lengthy, point-by- point rebuttal, claiming (falsely) that I had deliberately distorted the context?" Was that because he was "greatly astonished" that I would "so willingly stalk his every word"? Why, for that matter, would he be "greatly astonished" that I would "so willingly" (that's as opposed to "unwillingly," folks) "stalk his every word" when I've been doing it for *years* to expose his dishonesty? And why is Vaj valiantly pretending that my comments on Barry's multiple, contradictory versions of the Charlie Lutes tale had to do only with variations due to "casual writing," when they so obviously had to do with *content* and zilch to do with "casual writing"? Why did Vaj pretend my coments had to do with Charlie's exact words, when I never mentioned what Charlie said? Why did Vaj likewise pretend that my big point was the variations in the length of time Barry said Charlie was kept waiting, when that was only a minor point? Why does Vaj continue to ignore the *major* point, the contradiction that makes one of Barry's versions a lie? Which parts of this post will Vaj snip if he responds in an attempt to obscure his own deceptions? Questions, questions...
