On Thursday 10 May 2007 23:33, frank nelson wrote:
> I can only conclude that you knew the
> statement was false, yet made it anyway, making you a
> liar, and no more to be believed than Mr. Ballmer.
John is a straight shooter, and history favors his side of this
discussion. A
strong opinion based on historical-logical heuristics and backed up by strong
circumstantial evidence does not a liar one make. On the other hand, Mr.
Ballmer is most assuredly a Balled Faced pathological liar. Take it easy on
John--- he doesn't deserve it.
> As it now stands, you have no credibility whatever,
> and I see no reason to continue any discussion with
> you, on any matter whatever.
Come, come. Andersen has plenty of credibility... are you so narrow
that your
ability to discuss *anything* with another person can be permanently limited
because he does not happen to share your opinion on one single topic? Lighten
up... in the market place of ideas we have to keep the comm channels
open. :)
--
Kind regards,
M Harris <><
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
