quote:

---

> Taylor Kingston wrote (to Rob Mitchell)
> (15 Oct 2006 11:41:46 -0700):
> 7 ... [Phil Innes] said that I may have pulled old posts of mine.
> 7 I have *_never_* done that. I don't even know *_how_* to do it.
> 7 Innes replied with mock innocence that he was merely saying
> 7 it was "possible." OK, turnabout is fair play, then. I noted some
> 7 things that it was "possible" for Innes to do, such as tax evasion
> 7 and murder. If we're going to fling ridiculous possibilities around,
> 7 let's go whole hog.
> _
> Rob Mitchell wrote (to Taylor Kingston)
> (15 Oct 2006 16:06:12 -0700):
> 7 Oh, SO you did make that accusation.
> _
> I wrote (to Rob Mitchell)
> (15 Oct 2006 17:16:02 -0700):
> 7 Some of what actually happened:
> 7
> 7 "... TK may have pulled his original post where he
> 7 wrote the comment, ..." - Phil Innes (Sat, 14 Oct 2006
> 7 12:01:28 GMT)
> 7
> 7 "... I have never "pulled" any of my newsgroup posts.
> 7 I do not even know how that can be done. ..." - Taylor
> 7 Kingston (14 Oct 2006 07:32:52 -0700)
> 7
> 7 "... I cite it because it is possible to do so - therefore
> 7 said 'may'. ..." - Phil Innes (Sat, 14 Oct 2006
> 7 17:59:39 GMT)
> 7
> 7 "... It is possible to do a great many things. Shall we
> 7 therefore say to the IRS 'Phil Innes may have cheated
> 7 on his taxes'? Or to the police 'Phil Innes may have
> 7 killed that UVM student'? It's possible, after all. ..."
> 7 - Taylor Kingston (14 Oct 2006 14:02:36 -0700)
>
> _
> Taylor Kingston wrote (to Rob Mitchell)
> (15 Oct 2006 11:41:46 -0700):
> 7 By the way, Rob, you misuse the word "allude," ...
> _
> Rob Mitchell wrote (to Taylor Kingston)
> (15 Oct 2006 16:06:12 -0700):
> 7 Maybe. The point is to communicate a thought. You understood
> 7 what was being said and to attack an argument based upon
> 7 grammar rather than the crux of the argument itself ...
> _
> I wrote (to Rob Mitchell)
> (15 Oct 2006 17:16:02 -0700):
> 7 I suggest that Rob Mitchell look again at the first Taylor
> 7 Kingston quote above.
> _
> Rob Mitchell wrote (15 Oct 2006 20:26:20 -0700
> 7 Ok. What am I supposed to be looking for? ...
> _
> I wrote (15 Oct 2006 20:38:29 -0700):
> 7 Taylor Kingston dealing with "the crux of the argument itself".
>
> _
> Rob Mitchell wrote (15 Oct 2006 21:10:31 -0700):
>
> 7 WHich is? There are several topics in the first paragraph.
>
> _
> It was Rob Mitchell himself who referred to "the crux of the
> argument itself" in his 15 Oct 2006 16:06:12 -0700 note.
> If he does not know what he was talking about, I do not see
> why I should help him.