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.