| Louis Blair 2006-09-28, 7:40 pm |
| I wrote (26 Sep 2006 10:55:14 -0700):
7 ... Rob Mitchell wrote (26 Sep 2006 08:52:47 -0700): ... <<<<
_
Rob Mitchell wrote (26 Sep 2006 12:45:01 -0700):
7 ... you mis quoted me has having posted something on
7 09/26/2006 which I did not post on that date.
_
I wrote (26 Sep 2006 15:56:42 -0700):
7 From Google's records:
7 VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
7 ...
7 From: "Rob" <robmtchl@msn.com>
7 ...
7 Date: 26 Sep 2006 08:52:47 -0700 <<<<
7 ...
7 AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
_
Rob Mitchell wrote (26 Sep 2006 20:43:38 -0700):
7 Please look at your original post ant the time stamp
7 attributed then review the second time stamp attributed.
7 They do not match.
7
7 Now. is there something of value to continue with?
_
I wrote (27 Sep 2006 08:39:20 -0700):
7 See above.
7
7 Rob Mitchell quietly revised his complaint. Previously,
7 he had told us that he had not posted on "09/26/2006".
7 I pointed out that Google records tell a different story,
7 and Rob Mitchell switched to claiming that I attributed
7 time stamp's that don't match. Again, Google records
7 tell a different story.
7
7 I can not think of anything of value (other than an
7 apology) that Rob Mitchell could add to this subject
7 that he chose to pursue.
_
Rob Mitchell wrote (27 Sep 2006 10:45:40 -0700):
7 I graciously accept your apology and your
7 acknowledgement.
_
I wrote (27 Sep 2006 11:18:40 -0700):
7 I have not acknowledged or apologized for any mistake
7 claimed by Rob Mitchell in this discussion.
_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 28 Sep 2006 14:58:50 GMT):
7 Thanks to Louis Blair for apologising to Rob Mitchell,
7 then graciously consenting that he does not contest
7 any mistakes he made either. If more posts were of
7 this spirit, how happy we should all be  ...
_
Phil Innes is thanking me for things that I did not do.
Perhaps Phil Innes thinks that that is funny.
|