On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 09:46:32 -0500 Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I always read mailing lists backwards, assuming that that anything > important will be quoted in subsequent posts. It wasn't. Apparently that's the wrong way to do it, then. If you want to follow a discussion or thread, I suggest that you read it from start to finish and you will find that you become less confused. > Not that I tracked down and followed the link, I still have no idea what > you are talking about. If someone claims they can't find something it > doesn't necessarily make them a liar even if you think that something > exists. In the specific case that you refer to, there was nothing left to "find". I initially refuted his un-founded assumption with general statements and subsequently presented documented and completely reliable evidence directly. Lonnie's response was to slink off. Having given him the benefit of the doubt initially by assuming that he would correct any mis-perceptions that he had somehow acquired once they were properly pointed out, I was sadly disappointed when he opted instead to disappear and (apparently) hope that everyone would just forget when and if he dared to raise his head again. His actions revealed what I had assumed to be a min-understanding on his part to actually be a completely unsubstantiated lie. Which by definition makes him a liar and completely untrustworthy with regard to any past or future statements that he may make or have made. Again, you really should attempt to follow mailing list and newsgroup threads in order, from start to finish, if you wish to be able to understand the subject matter under discussion. You will have a much better understanding of what is going on if you do so. -- MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com
