I concluded that the word recruit meant that I had been sucessfully enlisted
for a number of reasons as follows:

1. The comment was clearly critical and there is nothing to criticize me for
if all that was meant was that someone unsucessfully tried to enlist my
assistance.  The same individuals tried to enlist all of us in their desire
to censor Bob with much the same results.  Some they tried to reach
privately, some they tried to reach in public.  All of us who are here now
and not there, and perhaps those that continue to frequent both lists,
declined the invitation.

2. I read and understand the word pretty much the same way Huw does,
particularly given 1. above.  Since Bob stated that this was an obscure
defintion, I checked after the fact.  According to The American Heritage
Dictionary, the first three definitions of recruite all require success.  1.
To engage persons for service (you have to succeed to engage), 2. To
strengthen or raise by enlistment (you have to succeed to enlist), 3. To
supply with new members or employees (you have to succeed to supply), 4. To
enroll or seek to enrole (the first definition to include the attempt rather
than it's only success). 5. To replenish (you have to succeed to replenish)
and 6. To renew or restore (you have to succeed to restore).  5 out of 6
definitions, including the first and most common 3, all require success.
Only one even partly includes the attempt.  It is not our definition that
appears to be obscure.

3. Bob didn't stop with the one post, but later claimed that I was someone
part of the efforts of specific individuals who were part of the conspiracy
against him, specifically Jan Faust and Ron Lee.  To me, this appears to
confirm his original intent and meaning.

I now conclude that one of two things has happened.

1. Bob considers someone else's attempt to enlist me in their cause to be a
criticism of me despite the fact that I not only didn't enlist, but went so
far as to report the attempt to Bob and become one of the most active
opponents of the censorship attempt.  If this is the case, then there's
really nothing for me to say.  I'm not insulted by resisting those who could
censor others, even when the other is Bob.  In fact, I'm kind of proud of my
performance in this respect.  It cost me something I valued to stick to my
moral principals.

2. Bob put his foot in his mouth yet again and is now trying to cover his
mistake by claiming a meaning and definition that was not, in fact, what he
meant.  If this is, in fact, what he's done and is doing, then I think it's
fair to call it waffling and lying.  I think everyone knows who first and
most often accuses others of waffling and lying.  If this, as I believe, is
what is happening, then Bob is once again doing exactly what I have
suggested before, doing exactly what he is most critical of in others.

I leave it to those who have taken the time to read Bob's comments and this
message to decide what Bob meant, whether I was recruited in a movement
against Bob, whether he has, in fact, provided even a shred of evidence as I
requested or which one of us it is that is waffling and lying now.

Lee