|
|
On 28 Mar 2008 at 11:15, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> 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.
You truly are an arrogant, lying bastard.
|
|