--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings > > <no_reply@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok, if you are in France Turquoise B, then you just posted > > > > > > a post at 3 o'clock in the morning. If you are not a drunk > > > > > > staying up to 3am and posting, are you an insomniac? > > > > > > > > > > Off, first you can't spell, and now it seems you > > > > > can't tell time, either. I was up late last night, > > > > > working on a project that's due this morning, but > > > > > you're considerably...uh...Off in your estimates. > > > > > Yahoo says that my last post was at 12:39. > > > > > > > > That's what Yahoo says *now*. But was it what Yahoo > > > > said when Off made his post? > > > > > > > > I mean, you're known to cancel posts that you find > > > > to be "inconvenient" in one way or another. > > > > > > I see. So you're saying that I, afraid that someone > > > would discover that I'd been posting late at night, > > > canceled those posts and then went back in time and > > > sent the one that Off quoted in *his* post *in the > > > past*, so it would bear the Yahoo timestamp of 11:32 > > > that it has now. Did I get that right? > > > > No, you didn't. You continue to have difficulty > > discerning the difference between an *assertion* > > and a *question*. > > > > My point was, of course, that since you're known > > to cancel "inconvenient" posts, and since you're > > known to be dishonest generally, one can't take > > your assertions at face value. > > A simple apology, after checking that no posts > were deleted last night, would have been sufficient.
Apology for what? I didn't do any checking. I asked a question. > Unless, of course, your real intent were to *claim* > that one can't take my assertions at face value. No need to "claim" that. It's been documented many times. > Wasn't it you who was berating someone lately for > posting negative information without checking the > source/validity of his claim. Don't believe so, but that's irrelevant since I didn't post any negative information about when you had made your post. I asked a *question* about whether you had canceled the post. You bounced into this > thread to *plant* the idea that I'd deleted some > posts from last night, when it would have taken you > less than 30 seconds to see that wasn't true, just > by checking the number sequence. > > In other words, your intent was to smear, as usual. > The facts be damned. My intention was as I stated it above: to point out that your general habit of dishonesty, and your habit of canceling "inconvenient" posts, means you can't be taken at your word about when you post; it's necessary to *question* your assertions. Which is what I did. If you don't like it, then I'd suggest you consider working to break your habit of dishonesty and resolve to always tell the truth. Once you've built up a reputation for doing so, it will no longer be necessary to question your assertions.
