Re: Question for Order "Expert" Derek
From: Andrew Gray (andrew.gray_at_dunelm.org.uk)
Date: 06/26/04
- Next message: OM: "Re: No Code talking here = WE ARE IN BIG TROUBLE"
- Previous message: Merl Turkin: "Re: Why?"
- In reply to: LaDonna Wyss: "Re: Question for Order "Expert" Derek"
- Next in thread: Derek Lyons: "Re: Question for Order "Expert" Derek"
- Reply: Derek Lyons: "Re: Question for Order "Expert" Derek"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 26 Jun 2004 00:51:47 GMT
On 2004-06-25, LaDonna Wyss <hpywife927@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > I'd like to hear more about where in the world you get your
>> > information!!!!
(...)
> Ummm, once again I'm being misquoted. Why do you have me listed at
> the beginning of this, when you do not quote anything I wrote until
> about halfway through the post?
Lines... um, lines 12 & 13 of my post - the ">> >" lines I've cited
above - were quoted from you, in post
<4821518f.0406240723.4c95d82@posting.google.com>
http://google.com/groups?selm=4821518f.0406240723.4c95d82@posting.google.com
(amongst others, of course, but they were the first ones; as per usual
practice, other replies are interleaved). It's not really "half-way";
the only parts of the article I replied to were by you, so you were the
attribution I kept.
My reply, the post you just replied to, is this:
<slrncdoq83.13n.andrew.gray@compsoc.dur.ac.uk>
http://google.com/groups?selm=slrncdoq83.13n.andrew.gray@compsoc.dur.ac.uk
Quotes from your post, <4821518f.0406240723.4c95d82@posting.google.com>,
are in that tasteful purple shade. The comments above the first material
quoted by yourself are from Derek, and "Revision"'s reply, and I
probably should have formed up the quotations there - multiple
indendtation does clarify they're from other parties, and it is only for
context, so...
I would like to reiterate the gist of the post, since you chose to skip
the content; I really don't see where you're coming from, since I made a
comment regarding a well-understood (and, in this small field,
reasonably famous) incident on a mission noting to do with your pet
topic. You threw out an angry response, apparently to me, casting doubt
on the veracity of my information, then going on about Apollo 7, apollo
13, and calling me an apologist. I'm moderately baffled by the first
parts, and insulted by the latter; how do you consider me an
"apologist"? I've stated my opinions on your pet topic before, I've
avoided arguing about it with you because I choose not to, and - since
it seems a not unreasonable assumption from your posting style that you
haven't dug too far in t'archives, my views on Challenger and the like
are likely unknown to you...
I really don't see where you're coming from, other than to try and bust
noses for the sake of it.
-- -Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
- Next message: OM: "Re: No Code talking here = WE ARE IN BIG TROUBLE"
- Previous message: Merl Turkin: "Re: Why?"
- In reply to: LaDonna Wyss: "Re: Question for Order "Expert" Derek"
- Next in thread: Derek Lyons: "Re: Question for Order "Expert" Derek"
- Reply: Derek Lyons: "Re: Question for Order "Expert" Derek"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
