Scott Weiser wrote:
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:


Scott queries:
================

Well done Scott! Good research. Your editorials, however, most often
missed the mark. I'll take these points up with you at a later date
(there's just WAY TOO MUCH you interpreted incorrectly!).

The question you should ask yourself is whether that "incorrect
interpretation" is deliberate or not.
============

Well the options that spring most immediately to mind are (a) yes, you
are deliberately misinterpreting so as to continue to cling to and
spread false information or (b) no, but you're not bright enough to be
able to understand what was written.

Are there other options?


Indeed. There's (c) as well. Can you figure out what it might be? I've given
you many clues.


=============
I'm not in the mood for guessing games.

frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself frtzw906 wrote:

Scott Weiser wrote:
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:


Scott queries:
================

Well done Scott! Good research. Your editorials, however, most often
missed the mark. I'll take these points up with you at a later date
(there's just WAY TOO MUCH you interpreted incorrectly!).

The question you should ask yourself is whether that "incorrect
interpretation" is deliberate or not.
============

Well the options that spring most immediately to mind are (a) yes, you
are deliberately misinterpreting so as to continue to cling to and
spread false information or (b) no, but you're not bright enough to be
able to understand what was written.

Are there other options?


Indeed. There's (c) as well. Can you figure out what it might be? I've given
you many clues.


=============
I'm not in the mood for guessing games.

Don't guess, mentate.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser