Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (17207)	6/21/2001 11:16:26 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Going over and over again about it probably isn't worthwhile. It is worthwhile. You made the statement you made, and it means what it reads, and what I said it meant. If you had meant something else, you would have said something else. The statement was in response to my sentence, and it was not qualified such as a person would have done if he had meant to only refer to a couple or three words of the sentence. Your silly commentary on this is starting to embarass. Nowhere in your statement did it say that you were only referring to one part, and if you were and were too ill-mannered to say so--then how was your statement supposed to convey to me, 1). ONE PART ONLY, SOLON, and 2). WHICH PART IT WAS!! Right Tim! And it was you who brought up the ABC's to PROVE that you were FULLY aware that the sentence CONTAINED two assertions! You can claim that you just don't like letting people know what parts of their sentences you are referring to until much later, and actually, hmmm--that sounds like it might after all be the true explanation!!