[MiNe 109]

In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:09:18 -0600, MiNe 109
wrote:

In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:08:03 -0600, MiNe 109
wrote:

In article ,
flipper wrote:

5 is not 15.

Another winning point repeated.

I wouldn't need to if you would ever 'get it'.

By 'oopsie' I meant 'I misstated the number of years covered by the
reference'.

I took it as that and, in case you didn't notice, make no
'accusations' or call you an 'ignorant slut', or any other ad hominem,
and things would have been fine had you left it there.

That's what I think about you.

This misstatement doesn't change the validity of the
reference nor was I making an independent argument.

And there is the problem because you then tried to pretend misstating
15 years as 5 'makes no difference' when, as I have repeatedly
explained, it does. And, as I've already said, you do not get to
decide what *my* points are nor do you get to decide that your
misstatement of them "makes no difference."

You are simply wrong. My misstatement has *no* effect on the original
statement.

Get it?

Oh, I got it the first time you couldn't simply let an 'oops' go by
and had to babble the absurdity it 'made no difference'.

I believe it is you who is making a meal of the misstatement.

Stephen