| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#11
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Am not "Toot Sweet"
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 |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Threaded Mode
