On Saturday, October 06, 2001 7:34 AM, Lee Bell wrote:


> > I have not - as yet - quoted any of your posts!

> Someone did, using your name and e-mail address.  If it wasn't you, then
you
> need to look around to see who is pretending to be.  Perhaps someone is
also
> posting what seems to be a cruisade against you as well.  Since I have not
> and still do not have such a cruisade in mine, almost anything is
possible.

I haven't noticed anybody trying to impersonate me - and I doubt that anyone
would to impersonate you either!

 > > > You seem to have also managed to miss the message I sent that
> > > included the statement I referred to, the one that showed you
> > > referral to "Lies" to be in error.

> > Unlike you, I read posts.

> Then I assume you simply chose not to withdraw your statement after it was
> shown to be incorrect.

Your skills in obfuscation are coming to the fore again.

Re-read the post that includes:

> Get over it, Lee!  You poked your nose into an exchange between Chuck and
> myself - one that had no intended malice.  (Hence the smiley.)  You chose
to
> make a public issue of that response by suggesting that I'd. "made almost
> the exact same statement" to you????  A comment that I maintain is a lie.

> > "If it helps your bruised ego, I'm quite happy for everybody
> > to think that I've lied about you and mis-represented your intentions"

> I don't know if you've lied.  I'm quite sure you have misrepresented my
> intentions.

Until you state - clearly and concisely - the purpose and aim of your
goadings, I have no idea what your intentions are!

>As for ego, it's hardly bruised, not even impacted.

That comes as little surprise!  (Although I was giving you the benefit of
the doubt in having an ego as opposed to an id!)

Strike