"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
ups.com...
rick wrote:
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...
snip...
change, and any apology that KMAN expects from r is
unlikely.
==============
Esopecially since I have nothing to apologize to him about.
he
has yet to offer his apology though, the one even you said he
owed.
TnT
rick I will venture one more time into this morass.
==================
thanks..
I am not sure
exactly the source of all the confusion. So if you are willing
to work
with me, I will try to be clear, fair, and understanding. I am
posting
using Google as a web access to the RBP archive, and all the
relevant
posts are numbered. The particular post including KMAN's
apology is
#1208 when listed in order of date. And currently #478, though
that
number is subject to change, when listed in order of reply.
==========================
It's the right number, however the reply he made was not to me.
It was a reply to you, and does not say he is apologizing to me.
It looks more like he is apologizing for bad wording. But as it
is, since it was never in a post to me, and it was buried down in
a post to you, I did not see it.
I don't
know if your news server keeps track of this info in the same
way, or
even archives the discussion at all. For that reason, if you
are unable
to find this post on your server, I would suggest that you go
to the
web accessed, Google archive of RBP, and affirm that indeed
KMAN did
post the following post. In the date an time of the post, I
have also
seen discrepancies develope, the source of which I am unsure,
it could
be different time zones.
I have copied below a post by KMAN on 3/1/05 at 8:24 PM. In his
post, I
have removed the delimiters so that Kman's apology should stand
out. I
realize that there is alot of other stuff included in this
post.
However, THERE IS AN APOLOGY IN THE MIDDLE OF IT!!! I regret
that KMAN
did not issue you an apology as I suggested,
=================
And to me, as he promised in several posts...
totally separate from all
this overburden, and during the daytime, when it would have the
greatest impact. However, he did issue you an apology for the
first
situation regarding the posting of evidence which you had
infact
provided, and he now acknowledged you provided as you claimed.
==================
He has to you, I found it in no poats he made to me. And others
here continue to claim the information is false.
snip restored post, as I found it on google...
Kman has as well retracted his statements regarding treatment
and
testing in New Foundland, and has attemted to clarify what he
meant to
say. He has acknowledged that what he said was not technically
correct.
==================
And I have admitted that he has changed he statement.
You say it was a declarative statement, and I agree, from
reading the
passage, that what he wrote was a declarative statemnt. Which
he has
now retracted and acknowledged that he had no grounds for
making the
declarative statement, and that it was infact technically
incorrect.
=================
Yes, I have said I admitted he now says the statement was wrong.
He, however continues to state that he never said it, period.
Now I think you know that I am largely in agreement with your
political
position, and I find KMAN willing to dump on me about my issues
at the
same time that he is asking for my testimony supporting his
claim that
you had not provided any evidence.
==================
I rather enjoyed that part. Calling on you for fairness and
impartiality, and then in the next post slamming your positions.
I went out of my way to research the
first issue, and extract an apology from him albeit, kicking
and
screaming. His duplicity is curious at best! However, he did
apologize
to you for saying that you had not provided evidence to support
your
claim, which he now acknowledges his claim as false, and
apologised as
stated above.
======================
Well, I'm not sure that the apology was to me, or about accepting
the claims, as it really appeared he was just apologizing for his
wording. But, if you think it was an apology, and an apology
about accepting the data provided, I'll accept that.
Regarding the second issue, I do not believe you necessarily
need to
apologize, since it was his misspeak again that led to the
difficulty.
Normally if people were together, a hand shake would be very
apporopriate to ameliate the hard feelings over the
misstatement of
fact on his part, which led to the current state of exchange,
however,
in lieu of a handshake, I would suggest that you acknowledge
that he
has modified his previous declarative statement.
========================
That I already have. I have already "complimented" him on
changing his tune. LOL
I do believe that you will owe him apology for the issue of
your
intransience in not allowing him to modify his statemnt
regarding the
second issue, if you continue as you have been doing.
====================
No no, I have admitted that he has changed his mind on what he
said. My only point is that he continues to say he did not make
the statement at all.
I would suggest,
to avoid this claim on his part regarding your unwillingness to
allow
him to change what he said, to what he meant to say, that you
acknowledge that he has modified his position, and hence avoid
further
acrimony and recriminations.
If you could do this it would go a long way to returning this
part of
the discussion to a meaningfull and mature discussion. This is
only a
suggestion though, since I believe that you are a mature adult,
with
much to offer a constructive mature conversation, if you choose
to do
so. Your choice!
=====================
I've been willing since the beginning. I porvided only info for
refuting his first claims, and got nothing but grief in return.
Nothing to refute what I posted, no informed Canadian sources
that would state that what I had found was in error. Instead,
just vitriol and the continued jingoistic chest-thumping that
they are so eager to claim americans are too guilty of all the
time. He could not get past his hate, and look at the issue
objectivly.
I acknowledge that the apology by KMAN leaves a lot to be
desired, with
his continuing protest, and his subsequent disparaging remarks
about
me. It reminds me of a Dennis the Menace cartoon I saw once!
Dennis is setting in the corner, obviously having misbehaved,
and as
his mom is leaving the room, you hear Dennis saying, "You can
make me
set down on the outside. But I am still standing up on the
inside!"
Well I suspect that KMAN is still standing up on the inside. We
will
see if either of you can shake hands and carry on a mature
conversation! TnT
==================
Thanks. I tried that at the beginning. It didn't get anywhere
with him, as he would never address the issues I brought up,
including more than just the dying in waitlines, and I admit it
went downhill from there. But when only one side is presenting
any data, and the other just keeps saying nah nah nah, you're
wrong, without backing it up, it's easy to go downhill.
|