[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: [email protected]
Date: 3/20/03
Time: 8:33:32 PM
Remote Name: 152.163.188.67
alleges:
Your reply to my challenge – not to Rose’s post – was, “Okay, you cleaned up my typos, and hid from the world my terrible typing skills.” THAT was the distraction that Rose identified in her post. The sense in which I used the word “edit” is clear; I made changes.
[That is all you edited. As I hafve made clear befofre, your challenge was about what your EDITING hid. The absolutely only thing you EDITED was my typos.
I directly and completely address the challenge.]
To delete something is to remove it. I didn’t remove anything. You said it yourself, I selected portions to of your post to quote. If you take the time to look closely at what Rose said and what I said about it, you will not find the word “deleted” anywhere.
[Exactly. You just admitted that the deletion was not editing, exacvtly as I heave repeatred stated. Again, you challenge was about what your EDITING hid, NOT what your form of citations or excerpting hid. Were your editing to have encompassed your excerpting, then you would haved been obliged to note the deletion with a ellipsis. You did not do that. You can, therefore, calim whatever you want, but your challenge said nothing about your exceprting.
It is not I who failed your challenge. It is that your challenge was a fraud because it was based on a direct lie. You based your challenge on a lie - that it was your editing that was at issue when you in fact meant excerpoting.
Now I am going to teach you a lesson about fraud.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
I don't deal with frauds.
Prien