Sunday, Sunday, January 06, 2002, 1:21:35 PM, Robert L Mathews wrote: > At 1/6/02 2:52 AM, William X Walsh wrote:
>>Non-valuable to WHO?!?!?! >> >>It is certainly valuable to the registrant, in either case. > Oh, give me a break. You know perfectly well what I meant, but you No, what I know, Robert, is that you are making a lot of assumptions, that are without base. Me and others have tried to kindly point that out to you, but you just refuse to see it. I see there is no way to have a reasonable conversation with you about this. I won't bother answering you any longer until you have something more relevant to say. The fact of the matter is, that there is uncertainty in the current system, which provides a much greater level of fairness than anything else that has been proposed. And that no other system presented, NO OTHER SYSTEM PRESENTED, is more fair than the current one. We have pointed that out to you many times, and instead you want us to forcibly disprove your wild assertions. Sorry, but I don't play that game. -- Best regards, William X Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --
