Six or seven of your guys have been posting to me. Posting falsities and distortions frequently. I post so much more accurately that it's hardly surprising that they evade and I reply. And of course I respond to accusations, and they only make them.
The most egregious example of an inaccuracy of mine would clearly be the one Michael wants to talk about virtually to the exclusion of anything else, when I wrote 'numerous and multiple threads' instead of 'numerous threads' and 'multiple posts.')
It's a small thing to opine on that doesn't even require me to do any work since Michael has talked about it so much it's stayed with me, and i'd very much appreciate your view:
1) Do you find a significant difference among these three concepts:
NUMEROUS THREADS
and
MULTIPLE THREADS
and
NUMEROUS AND MULTIPLE THREADS?
Would you give your opinion about whether it significantly mischaracterized Michael's assertion that I had posted a NYT piece on numerous threads, and then later in the same post, that I had made 'multiple posts,' when, having misunderstood, I made the error of quoting that assertion as posting on 'numerous and multiple threads'?
This is the first matter I would like you to opine on, please, and i'm grateful for the offer.
In essence, the question is:
2) Did the error with the quotes ('numerous and multiple threads' vs. 'numerous threads.') produce an ethically significant difference in meaning?
The associated question i'd like your opinion on is:
3) are two threads (this one and Boxing Ring) 'numerous threads'?
The answer that question of course determines the answer to questions 1) and 2). IMO.
Edit: Prediction: it is my belief that you will soon withdraw your offer to opine on the specifics of my 'case.' Your opinions will be embarrassing to your friends, and you will decline to give them, therefore. Just an impression. Specifics are not much liked here. |
