Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="dorayme, post: 759713"] Phew! What a bad temper! What do you understand that I have asked you? I meant simply that I could not see what was wrong with my quoting and could not see scattered >s (except one that I mentioned). And I go on later to think more about and entertain the possibility we are seeing different things, that maybe there is something about our respective newsreaders. Right! First you give the whole world the impression it was me who buys lewd mags and gets excited by them, then you try to brush it off saying it is only me who would get that impression. When I give you some evidence of how it appeared, you say I doctored things and directly insult me. I take some exception to this accusation. You are totally out of line here. I did not doctor anything. Post pics of relevant representations (perhaps the Google ones so they are independent of particular news clients, browsers tend to represent things more evenly perhaps) and show in detail where you are saying I have "doctored" things. You made the accusation, now put up or shut up. Never give an inch eh? When I invite rapproachment by suggesting there may be issues to do with how things are appearing at each end - in other words "Hey, this may not be either of our faults" - you decide that unconsolable and remorseless is the way to go. Yes, you are right on this, I looked up article 59 in the thread and it was not there but did appear in my 61. It appears in slightly different places subsequently. I do not know how this happened. But I accept this one was not from you. But I am puzzled by all the others you claim which I do not see. To be clear, I am not saying you invented these things, just that I do not see any significant scattering of ">"s. But perhaps it is silly to try to be reasonable with someone who is in such a brutal mood. Maybe go back to your magazine and finish things off, you might be in a better mood then. [/QUOTE]

Verification