Steve Daniels wrote:
On 18 Jul 2004 14:00:07 GMT, something compelled
(JAXAshby), to say:

dood, *you* posted the number. please back it up, or give it up.

This asshole would argue with an anchor.


The anchor would win.

Jax and Harry seem to use the exact same debate tactics


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Steve Daniels wrote:
On 18 Jul 2004 14:00:07 GMT, something compelled
(JAXAshby), to say:

dood, *you* posted the number. please back it up, or give it up.

This asshole would argue with an anchor.


The anchor would win.

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:Y7BKc.90025$WX.58730@attbi_s51...
Jax and Harry seem to use the exact same debate tactics



Not quite. Harry at least has some wit & style.

Gary Warner wrote:

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:Y7BKc.90025$WX.58730@attbi_s51...
Jax and Harry seem to use the exact same debate tactics



Not quite. Harry at least has some wit & style.



Actually, I have quite a bit, but there's no reason to waste much of it
here.

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 08:29:39 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:
Gary Warner wrote:

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:Y7BKc.90025$WX.58730@attbi_s51...
Jax and Harry seem to use the exact same debate tactics



Not quite. Harry at least has some wit & style.



Actually, I have quite a bit, but there's no reason to waste much of it
here.
====================================

Maybe we should start awarding wit points and style points as separate
categories, and then tabulate by on topic/off topic. Harry wins off
topic for either category in my opinion although Chuck threatens for
style points. Now we need some serious "on topic" contributors -- wit
and style optional.