|
|
Jeff P. Bailey said:
<snip>
>
> In summary, I find your evidence wafer thin.
In summary, I find your summary unconvincing.
> Only one of the examples
> shows definite dishonesty on your part,
No, none of them do.
> but all of the others show every
> sign of being a deliberate attempt on your part to misconstrue what
> jacob has said for the purposes of presenting him in a negative light.
Rubbish. In all but one of the cited cases, IIRC, I demonstrated from the
Standard that he was wrong. The fourth, I felt so obvious that I didn't
need to cite, but I can do so if you wish.
I would much prefer my replies to present Jacob Navia in a positive light.
Unfortunately, he doesn't give me much opportunity.
> Your examples have only confirmed my belief that you have a personal
> agenda to undermine him.
Your reply has lent credence to the theory that you may be too ready to
jump to conclusions on insufficient data. You also seem to think that your
belief is of particular importance to me. It isn't. You believe what you
like. My own belief is that this group would be better off if Jacob Navia
learned what it's for.
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: - www">http://www. +rjh@
Google users: < www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php">http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
|
|