Carl Lindner wrote: > Yes, Ricardo I did take the time to check the article... > Maybe it's my english? You seem to convey I said you didn't take the time to check the article. I did not say that, I said that "I" did not check the article. Hello? Am I getting through?
> Rather than checking the "cover" of the NY Times you should be reading page > 28 or so. > Rather than taking me so literally you should look at the moon and not at the finger pointing at it. (BTW, I read the whole paper, not only the "cover", but now that you mention it I'll only read page 28 and throw the rest of the damned thing away) > So, let's give this a little time to see if there is any validity. HE DOES NOT LET US GIVE HIM A LITTLE TIME ! ! ! He keeps mindlessly copying and pasting the same kind of things over and over! As if he feels repetition will prove his point point. Reminds me of Abe Simpson, always eager to tell his looong and boring memories. > I have > not read all the hacked emails but there were passages that indicate I was > not bright enough to understand the necessity of data manipulation. > To whom are you talking? "hacked emails"???? Did you copy this last sentence from a movie script? Are you high? > I normally lurk - but I'd like to keep active on this topic. It is of some > significance. > Then by all means google for it and let us be. _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
