Re: Are the Filthy Rich Necessary?
- From: royls@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 03:06:16 GMT
On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 14:10:33 -0400, "Paul Thomas, CPA"
<paulthomascpapc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<royls@xxxxxxxxx> wrote
?? It is ONLY what he wrote,
Glad you agree that I posted ONLY what he wrote.
But you did not,
C'mon, you have GOT to start making up your messy mind.
It's either ONLY what he wrote, or it isn't.
?? ROTFL!!
Inevitably, you chopped the context to change the meaning of my words.
It is your most common mode of "argument," and is essentially just a
sneakier way of lying about what I said. Here's the context,
restored:
"But you did not, contrary to your lies, present his post intact."
You snipped the context to alter the meaning of his words, just as you
did above to alter the meaning of mine.
Are you starting to get the picture, yet? You are rather like the
bone-headed crook who, to refute the prosecuting attorney's evidence,
supplies the court with information that only the culprit could know.
-- Roy L
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Are the Filthy Rich Necessary?
- From: Paul Thomas, CPA
- Re: Are the Filthy Rich Necessary?
- References:
- Re: Are the Filthy Rich Necessary?
- From: Paul Thomas, CPA
- Re: Are the Filthy Rich Necessary?
- Prev by Date: Re: Are the Filthy Rich Necessary?
- Next by Date: Re: Are the Filthy Rich Necessary?
- Previous by thread: Re: Are the Filthy Rich Necessary?
- Next by thread: Re: Are the Filthy Rich Necessary?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|