JimLane wrote:

> Charles Gifford wrote:
>
>> "JimLane" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> <snip>
>>
>>> In case it went over your head, I was originally talking to Gifford when
>>> P. dove in, not the other way around.
>>>
>>> jim
>>
>> Your attributions were poorly done Jim, but I certainly knew that you
>> first addressed your remarks to me. I did not answer your post because it
>> did not seem to require any comment from me. Bob responded very well to your
>> post.
>> Even if I felt your remarks merited comment, there was no need to as Bob
>> covered them well.
>>
>> Charlie
>>
> Does not change the fact that I did not start the problem with P., he did.

Hey shitwit JimLane. Here's the URL for the thread where you've been
so grievously put upon. <http://tinyurl.com/2drcz>

Read for content and tone, particularly your posts. I wrote what I did
in reply to a rather shallow, clearly erroneous, combative note of
yours. It seems to be more important to you to "win" something than to
actually engage in discourse.

You argue like a child by introducing irrelevancies and slippery
qualifications with little regard for anything approaching truth or
balance. After the "I didn't start it" ploy becomes too transparent, I
expect your version of "I'm rubber; you're glue" to make its way here.

Quit whining.

Pastorio