*JimH* wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
??????!

1. If you really want me to google up your comments about your
relatively high number of boating-realted posts, as well as your
comment that those posts specifically outnumber my boating-related
posts I'll try to set aside some time when the more important issues of
the day have been resolved to fiddle with it.


Yes I would like you to google up where I said my "on-topic posts are far
more numerous than most partcipants' here, specifically outnumbering mine
(yours) by a significant amount."

Please show me where I made that specific claim and don't try to weasle out
of it.



May I suggest you not
press this issue?

I am pressing it. Please provide proof I said what you claimed I said.

It really is pathetic that *you* threw me into your thread (I had made no
comment in your thread prior to you bring me into it) and *you* ended up
turning it into an OT flaming thread.

Go figure Chuckie.

Yes, pretty pathetic.


As you continue to insist:

June 17, 2005. Post #21 in thread "Observation Sea Ray 200 Select".
Google it up and see for yourself. I'd repost it here, but that would
only lead to some ridiculous diversionary comment about the mechanics
by which I posted it rather than address the core issue: your claim
that you never said your on-topic posts far exceed my own. (You seek to
make an issue out of this, even though I used your own statement about
your number of on-topic posts as a cornerstone of my logic when I
defended you from another party's unprovoked attack. That is completely
bizarre.)

By the way, this took about 20 seconds to find. You want some more? I
warned you this would bite you on the arse, but perhaps you feel
"cornered" once again.



Now spin on Mr. Spinmeister.

wrote in message
oups.com...


*JimH* wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
??????!

1. If you really want me to google up your comments about your
relatively high number of boating-realted posts, as well as your
comment that those posts specifically outnumber my boating-related
posts I'll try to set aside some time when the more important issues of
the day have been resolved to fiddle with it.


Yes I would like you to google up where I said my "on-topic posts are far
more numerous than most partcipants' here, specifically outnumbering mine
(yours) by a significant amount."

Please show me where I made that specific claim and don't try to weasle
out
of it.



May I suggest you not
press this issue?

I am pressing it. Please provide proof I said what you claimed I said.

It really is pathetic that *you* threw me into your thread (I had made no
comment in your thread prior to you bring me into it) and *you* ended up
turning it into an OT flaming thread.

Go figure Chuckie.

Yes, pretty pathetic.


As you continue to insist:

June 17, 2005. Post #21 in thread "Observation Sea Ray 200 Select".
Google it up and see for yourself.

You google it.....you supposedly found it. Post it Chuck. Post what I said
in that thread as I did not say my "on-topic posts are far more numerous
than most partcipants' here, specifically outnumbering mine (yours) by a
significant amount."

I never said that and you know it. Liar.

So are you man enough to apologize?

I guess not.

wrote in message
oups.com...


*JimH* wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
??????!

1. If you really want me to google up your comments about your
relatively high number of boating-realted posts, as well as your
comment that those posts specifically outnumber my boating-related
posts I'll try to set aside some time when the more important issues of
the day have been resolved to fiddle with it.


Yes I would like you to google up where I said my "on-topic posts are far
more numerous than most partcipants' here, specifically outnumbering mine
(yours) by a significant amount."

Please show me where I made that specific claim and don't try to weasle
out
of it.



May I suggest you not
press this issue?

I am pressing it. Please provide proof I said what you claimed I said.

It really is pathetic that *you* threw me into your thread (I had made no
comment in your thread prior to you bring me into it) and *you* ended up
turning it into an OT flaming thread.

Go figure Chuckie.

Yes, pretty pathetic.


As you continue to insist:

June 17, 2005. Post #21 in thread "Observation Sea Ray 200 Select".
Google it up and see for yourself. I'd repost it here, but that would
only lead to some ridiculous diversionary comment about the mechanics
by which I posted it rather than address the core issue: your claim
that you never said your on-topic posts far exceed my own. (You seek to
make an issue out of this, even though I used your own statement about
your number of on-topic posts as a cornerstone of my logic when I
defended you from another party's unprovoked attack. That is completely
bizarre.)

By the way, this took about 20 seconds to find. You want some more? I
warned you this would bite you on the arse, but perhaps you feel
"cornered" once again.



OK....I will post it. Here is what I said in that thread:

"My recent *on topic* posts far exceed yours. You have also started
far more *off topic* posts."

You accused me of saying my "on-topic posts are far more numerous than most
partcipants' here, specifically outnumbering mine (yours) by a significant
amount."

I await your apology.

*JimH* wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


*JimH* wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
??????!

1. If you really want me to google up your comments about your
relatively high number of boating-realted posts, as well as your
comment that those posts specifically outnumber my boating-related
posts I'll try to set aside some time when the more important issues of
the day have been resolved to fiddle with it.


Yes I would like you to google up where I said my "on-topic posts are far
more numerous than most partcipants' here, specifically outnumbering mine
(yours) by a significant amount."

Please show me where I made that specific claim and don't try to weasle
out
of it.



May I suggest you not
press this issue?

I am pressing it. Please provide proof I said what you claimed I said.

It really is pathetic that *you* threw me into your thread (I had made no
comment in your thread prior to you bring me into it) and *you* ended up
turning it into an OT flaming thread.

Go figure Chuckie.

Yes, pretty pathetic.


As you continue to insist:

June 17, 2005. Post #21 in thread "Observation Sea Ray 200 Select".
Google it up and see for yourself. I'd repost it here, but that would
only lead to some ridiculous diversionary comment about the mechanics
by which I posted it rather than address the core issue: your claim
that you never said your on-topic posts far exceed my own. (You seek to
make an issue out of this, even though I used your own statement about
your number of on-topic posts as a cornerstone of my logic when I
defended you from another party's unprovoked attack. That is completely
bizarre.)

By the way, this took about 20 seconds to find. You want some more? I
warned you this would bite you on the arse, but perhaps you feel
"cornered" once again.



OK....I will post it. Here is what I said in that thread:

"My recent *on topic* posts far exceed yours. You have also started
far more *off topic* posts."

You accused me of saying my "on-topic posts are far more numerous than most
partcipants' here, specifically outnumbering mine (yours) by a significant
amount."

I await your apology.

You expect me to apologize because my memory of a month-old thread
included the words "significantly outnumber" rather than the actual
quote "far exceed"?

Go **** to windward.

The issue is whether you expressed the claim that you have denied
claiming, not what exact word was used in making the claim.. Clearly
you did make the claim, and you're now down to the Bill Clinton defense
of screwing around with the definition of "sex". How does that make you
feel, to be reduced to Clintonese?

And there are more of your quotes where that came from- but it's
obvious that dragging them out here one by one will only prolong your
technically oriented, desperate denials.

wrote in message
oups.com...


*JimH* wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


*JimH* wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
??????!

1. If you really want me to google up your comments about your
relatively high number of boating-realted posts, as well as your
comment that those posts specifically outnumber my boating-related
posts I'll try to set aside some time when the more important issues
of
the day have been resolved to fiddle with it.


Yes I would like you to google up where I said my "on-topic posts are
far
more numerous than most partcipants' here, specifically outnumbering
mine
(yours) by a significant amount."

Please show me where I made that specific claim and don't try to
weasle
out
of it.



May I suggest you not
press this issue?

I am pressing it. Please provide proof I said what you claimed I
said.

It really is pathetic that *you* threw me into your thread (I had made
no
comment in your thread prior to you bring me into it) and *you* ended
up
turning it into an OT flaming thread.

Go figure Chuckie.

Yes, pretty pathetic.


As you continue to insist:

June 17, 2005. Post #21 in thread "Observation Sea Ray 200 Select".
Google it up and see for yourself. I'd repost it here, but that would
only lead to some ridiculous diversionary comment about the mechanics
by which I posted it rather than address the core issue: your claim
that you never said your on-topic posts far exceed my own. (You seek to
make an issue out of this, even though I used your own statement about
your number of on-topic posts as a cornerstone of my logic when I
defended you from another party's unprovoked attack. That is completely
bizarre.)

By the way, this took about 20 seconds to find. You want some more? I
warned you this would bite you on the arse, but perhaps you feel
"cornered" once again.



OK....I will post it. Here is what I said in that thread:

"My recent *on topic* posts far exceed yours. You have also started
far more *off topic* posts."

You accused me of saying my "on-topic posts are far more numerous than
most
partcipants' here, specifically outnumbering mine (yours) by a
significant
amount."

I await your apology.

You expect me to apologize because my memory of a month-old thread
included the words "significantly outnumber" rather than the actual
quote "far exceed"?

Go **** to windward.

Don't spin it. You were wrong and purposefully exageragated what I actually
said in a lame attempt to make a point. I never said anything about other
participants here. My comment was about my *recent* posts compared to
yours. You know it. I know it.

The old "who me?" ploy has been played once too many times Chuckie.

This thread has defined you as to the type of man and type of person you
are....for all to see.

You are pathetic on both counts.

Go **** yourself.