On Tue, 16 May 2006 15:34:37 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Tue, 16 May 2006 08:30:36 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Reginald P. Smithers wrote:
What I think is so funny is JimH was all upset when JohnH made a few
comments about Race for Renee, but look at the number of comments JimH
has made concerning the "Scandal behind the Race for Renee".

I think he might want to forward this to the NYT or the Washington Post
for a more detailed follow up concerning Reneegate.


Do you have some ulterior motive for sustaining this?

Harry, did JimH have some ulterior motive for *starting* this? As you know,
you were the only person whose donation I offered to triple, yet JimH has
implied otherwise. Is there some reason you've not corrected him?
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************



I've posted this before, and I'll post it again. I skip a lot of posts
here these days. My interest is sporadic. I do, though, see these damned
idiotic headers and I wonder why you just don't let this die. It
deserves to.

Good idea. The silly crap should not have been started in the first place.
Why, though, do you accuse only *me* of not letting it lie, but say nothing
to the one making the false accusations? Today I got home from work and
found about 25 posts in this thread, none of which had been made by me.

I'd be interested in knowing.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************