On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 12:52:29 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message



Here's a direct question. why did you delete this line?:

"The only real sin I saw was Glenn complaining what a **** Arni is,
while proving he can be a cruder and more obscene opponent in a
debate".

Because Weil IMO it shed no useful light on the discussion at hand.

Of course it did. I means that Jennifer didn't just 'attack" you out
of the blue. It was in response to a statement made by one of your
supporters.

But
since you brought it up I'll show how it proves my point about Jennifer's
comments being gratuitous, and how mentioning it shows how hysterical and
stupid you really are.

Yes, dear reader, please follow along.

Furthermore Weil as you admit, I posted a proper link to the post so people
could easily read the whole thing at their leisure. That means that I
effectively provided the entire context, even adjacent posts which google
will quickly provide once you have my link.

In contrast Weil, neither you nor Lionel posted a proper link,

I certainly *did* provide the proper link. It was in the quoted
material of the post and therefore was provided again by me in my
first address of this particular issue.

but
preferred to let the out-of-context quote stand in its deceptive, and
incomplete state.

Not true. I provided not only the entire link but the entire post as
well, something that you didn't do.

Nobody would be likely to search this out but me, your
intended victim. And that suited your deceptive purposes, quite nicely.

I don't know what you're talking about. The link is *clearly* in my
post about the subject and the entire post is quoted, something that
you didn't do. You quoted it to make it look like Jennifer just wrote
that without any prior reference to you (hence your use of the term
gratuitous).

That was Mike's line, the line that Jennifer was responding to. Did
you delete it because it would have put lie to the statement that her
mention of you was GRATUITOUS?

Mike's line clearly proves that from Jennifer's comment was gratuitous since
she was commenting on something written by Glenn about me, and not something
that I wrote about her.

Can't you read? She was commenting on something Mike said about you
and an exchange you had with Glenn.

Want to admit that you're wrong now?

You see, because Mike brought your name up FIRST, she was clearly
responding to that remark, which means that it wasn't gratuitious to
talk about your behavior, since Mike had already brought it up.

Since Jennifer was NOT responding to something I wrote about her, her
personal attack was obviously completely gratuitous.

No it wasn't. It was a direct reply to something that someone else
said about you. That means it wasn't gratuitous, no matter *how* you
spin it.

In fact, Jennifer was engaging in the time-honored RAO practice of piling-on
to someone else's flames.

No, she was commenting on what Mike said.

It obviously *wasn't* gratuitous, so you need to answer the question, or
retract and apologize.

This just shows how completely hysterical and stupid you are, Weil. You're
obviously very confused about what it means to join in on someone else's
personal attacks on a third party. You actually seem to think its not a
gratuitous attack on your part!

I have no idae what you're talking about here.

And this folks is one of the things I meant when I was talking about "dumb
guys"

Whew! You're digging your own grave here, Arnold.

Well folks, look like Arnold lost.

Again.