To: mph who wrote (182592 ) 2/14/2004 12:58:18 PM From: tejek Respond to of 1575175 Every article and every commentator must be looked at from the POV of their particular bias or agenda. That was the point I was making here. Do you honestly believe that I don't understand that premise? Actually, I do.. Well, that's what's great about this country......we are all fully entitled to be wrong with our opinions. <g> Like I've said before, you are coming to conclusions with very little data. You've posted on this board....for what? two weeks? If you had been here longer, you would understand that the articles I post reflect my position and not the other way around well, duh again, Ted. The bold-faced portion of your response above was my point to you in our last go-around. However, just a couple of days ago, you sent me this post:siliconinvestor.com . In that post you said: I never once said that........you've interpreted an article that I posted as saying that. And I might out that that's your extrapolation.......in truth, the article never once called the US terrorists. BTW, just for the record, I post articles that both support my views as well take a very different position from my views. I see.......you're going to quibble over the words "support" and "reflect". Maybe in a court of law their difference in meaning might be a cause for alarm, but here...on this thread.....fogeddibotit!It didn't take long to figure you out actually, though it does seem that you're a bit confused about your own posting record.<g> Good! I like being an easy read. Never have tried to be mysterious or opaque in my presentation.While I enjoyed your pseudo-psychological analysis and love the fact that you're a man in touch with your emotions, I haven't the time to play with you any more today. Dang! And just when I was starting to have some fun!and, no, I've never signed anything "matt" and haven't a clue who that is. Have a nice w/e. You, too.