David Strike 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.

> I haven't noticed anybody trying to impersonate me . . .

If not, then your statement that you have not quoted me is inconsistent with
the facts.  I believe that is what you would call a lie and I believe that
is also what you would call a double standard.

> > > > 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.

Your unwillingness to face your own errors is as well.

> Re-read the post that includes:

> > Get over it, Lee!  You poked your nose into an exchange between
> > Chuck and myself . . .

The most amusing aspect of this is that the comment that resulted in your
comment about whether I was a gentleman or not originated with your response
to my post to someone else.  That was OK.  My comment about whether you were
a gentleman or not originated with my response to your post to someone else.
That's not OK.  That's what is called a double standard, something you also
feel is OK when you are responsible but not when others are.

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

Then I suggest it is unwise to continue to represent what they are or are
not to others, as you have done from the begining of this thread.

You have talked in circles, made unsupported allegations about a cruisade
waged against you by, made statements you then denied and been caught in
mistakes you have declined to admit.  You have made youself and this thread
you chose to start worth less than the time it takes to continue it.