On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:25:55 -0700, jps wrote:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:59:01 -0500, wrote:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:47:41 -0400, H the K
wrote:
On 9/25/09 11:33 AM, wrote:
snipped for contextual obligations
Then you should be able to evidentially reveal the other poster's
identity.
further redaction action
What you think I
"should" do and what *I* decide I will do only coincide when *I* decide
they do.
I'm sorry, Harry, but this doesn't even make sense,
contextually or otherwise.
That's rich. With all your ponderous scribbling you're having trouble
parsing Harry's simple phrase.
It's not the parsing that is problematic, JPS. It's the ostensible
assumption on his part that I 'thought' he should reveal the other
poster's identity. His response was juxtaposed below my assertion
that he should be able to divulge the other person's identity. There
was no requirement for him to do so, implicitly or explicitly. Does
that make sense? There are support groups that help with
comprehending "ponderous scribbling," if that will help at all.
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access