bb wrote:
K4YZ wrote:

You can't seem to get through your own fantasies, Brain...

Any fantasy of mine cannot influence your ability to string together a
sentence.

Why would I want to "string together a sentence" based on any
fantasy of yours, Brain?

You're a discredited liar. I have no desire to emulate that.

I don't think you were paying attention, Brain...(Like THAT'S
new...)

Such baseless accusations (lies) you're always making.

It's not baseless.

IE: Unlicesed Devices, ARES, MARS, Lawful Operating from Foreign
Soil, etc.

You've been proven wrong on every single one.

Yet we're talking about What Christy has written, and you've been shown
to be wrong. Again.

Nope.

Re-read what was written...Lennie will NOT be pleased...(Like
THAT'S new either!!!)

Steve, K4YZ

Pull your head out and re-read it yourself. You won't be pleased.

Nothing to re-read. Yuo got it wrong. Now you've gotten it wrong
twice.

I asked for clarification. Christy gave it. You're wrong.

No, I'm not.

Christy said that the longer the reply, the more likely it is that the
original opinion was correct.

Uh huh.

I say Lennie's an idiot.

It's not about you. It's about what Christy said that would please
Len.

Too bad for you.

Too bad I was right?

Why?

QUOTE:

On 31 May 2005 15:40:05 -0700, bb wrote:

Christy D wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2005 12:07:05 GMT, Kim wrote:
[102 lines snipped]

The correctness of the original opinion is directly proportional to
the length of the attempted rebuttal.

inversely proportional?

No. The longer the rebuttal attempt, the more likely it is that the
original opinion was correct. Hence the direct proportionality.

UNQUOTE

Sorry, Brain...You've screwed the pooch...Again...

Steve, K4YZ