>
> Kevin's "rhetorical attack" noted!
>
I guess Stephen has no sense of the hyperbolically absird, but then he always
did tend to take himself too seriously.
>
[snip]
>
> When Kevin picks himself up from rolling on the floor laughing, he should
> read again what I said, not what he *wants* me to have said. I said
> "multiple simultaneous posts" not "multiple sequential responses".
>
And if Stephen would take the time to read what I said instead of imagine
what he wants me to have said, he would see that my reference to multiple
sequential posts referred to him, not me. His sequential posts forced me to
respond in bits and pieces as well, but rather than address his individual
posts, I found it easier to address his numerous, and often numerously
repeated, claims grouped together as common subjects. Only a few of my posts
were simultaneous, but even if more were that point is irrelevant. I replied
as soon as I received a new post, so I was posting multiple submissions only
because Stephen was. For him to break off the discussion using that as an
excuse, when in fact he was the one who initiated the practise, suggests that
there is another more legitimate reason he wants to keep hidden. And since
he did the same thing after only one single-post exchange, and exchange he
claimed he wanted to continue, I must conclude that the more legitimate
reason was that he could not refute my claims and did not want to look the
fool.
Stephen claims that he would "love" to debate me on this issue. Well, talk
is cheap. My posts are still in the Archive; let him chose one and try to
refute it. He can take as much time as he needs. Until he does, however, he
is in essence, as my Deutscher great-mother used to say, all icing and no
cake.
Kevin L. O'Brien