|
|
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.
That's no surprise - you find everyone who doesn't share all your
opinions unconvincing. This dogmatism and absolutism is one of your
greatest faults, and has done great damage to clc.
>> Only one of the examples
>> shows definite dishonesty on your part,
>
> No, none of them do.
Obviously false, as any neutral observer will testify.
> I would much prefer my replies to present Jacob Navia in a positive light.
> Unfortunately, he doesn't give me much opportunity.
Yeah, right. Of course you don't go through every one of Jacob's posts
with a fine toothcomb, looking for some petty little nit you can blow up
out of all proportion to carry on your guerilla war with him!
>> 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.
Right. You don't give a frick about the views of anyone other than
yourself. In most places, that's called unbelievable arrogance. That
fits.
> My own belief is that this group would be better off if Jacob Navia
> learned what it's for.
My own belief is that this group would be better off if your internet
connection was destroyed in a freak accident.
|
|