| Louis Blair 2006-11-19, 8:44 pm |
| After quoting my 17 Nov 2006 14:28:12 -0800 note,
Rob Mitchell wrote (17 Nov 2006 14:31:34 -0800):
7 Dr Blair,
7 Is there some reason that you are inclined to try to continue
7 a debate where the two parties involved have moved on? Is
7 there something important here?
_
I wrote (17 Nov 2006 15:11:01 -0800):
7 My 17 Nov 2006 14:28:12 -0800 note was a reply to
7 the Fri, 17 Nov 2006 14:27:17 GMT note of Phil Innes
7 in this thread. I see nothing wrong with replying to a
7 Phil Innes note.
_
Rob Mitchell wrote (17 Nov 2006 16:21:11 -0800):
7 Dr. Blair,
7 I agree there is nothing wrong with replying to a note if there
7 is a reason to do so to forwaard an understanding.
_
That is what I was attempting to do.
_
Rob Mitchell wrote (17 Nov 2006 16:21:11 -0800):
7 In this case, I think it does neither since both parties have
7 moved on.
_
It strikes me as premature to declare that Phil Innes has
moved on, considering that the Phil Innes contribution to
this thread appeared here earlier this day. In any event,
even if Phil Innes feels that he has "moved on", I do not
think that that gives him the right to make a last post and
expect others to allow it to pass without comment. I think
that comment on some of what he posted was appropriate.
_
Rob Mitchell wrote (17 Nov 2006 16:21:11 -0800):
7 There is no reason , IMO to continue to add up strings
7 of snipped posts in order to try to make a point that has
7 reready settled.
_
As long as Phil Innes continues to post statements of the
sort that appeared here on Fri, 17 Nov 2006 14:27:17 GMT
(earlier today), I will consider it perfectly justified to respond
to such statements whether Rob Mitchell likes it or not.
|