quote:
John D Harris wrote:
Nice try on the cutting and pasting of two seperate posts to cover your rear-end, that was a good move, showing skill and adaptive argueing (sp?) abilites!
In other words, you can't deal with the fact that you misread what I wrote. Unfortunately for you, the words are there: and people can decide on their own, using logic, whether "open to question" as you state is the same thing as "we've come to a conclusion."
Though you do have faith in achieving some amazing conclusions. How you arrived at:
The FACT that there were 12 former Enron execs and they none did anything illegal, or uneithical on Enron's behalf testifies against you.
...in your post to me, when I had previously written about the attempts to hammer Bush with Enron:
And for all that I think he's a poor president in many respects, I don't think he deserves this.
...is truly of that faith that surpasseth understanding. Can't you see that you accused me of one thing above, when I had already written the opposite?
I'm not a debater, so if you want to play shadow games with me, you'll probably win. But because all the words in this case are out in the open--my post, your comments, my response--I don't think the game are going to matter. Read what I wrote, and stop trying to imagine me saying the opposite of what I did. Or making me out to be a supporter of the "let's club Bush with Enron" society, when I'm decidedly not.
[ 01-25-2002: Message edited by: fable ]