On 6 May 2007 19:44:08 -0700, "
wrote:

On May 6, 4:36 pm, wrote:

I don't recall the FAQ stating that I had to cite a source. It seems
that you are fabricating new rules.

Either way, I heard it while listening to the SW radio. I did not post
it to please you. If you have issues with it might I suggest a kill
filter.

Good day

Rules? What rules? I was only pointing out that your arguments to
rationalize your off-topic positng were intellectually dishonest. You
are making another illogical extrapolation.


You are the one that stated that I had to cite a source for a news
story! You add rules to the faq and now you want to dance your way out
of what you said?

Typical....

On May 6, 8:23 pm, wrote:
You are the one that stated that I had to cite a source for a news
story! You add rules to the faq and now you want to dance your way out
of what you said?

Typical....

Nice try. I did not make any assrtion that you were required by any
rules to cite your source. You are fabricating another false and
untruthful statement. Typical.

If you re-read it, you will see that I made a simple, provably
correct, declarative sentence that said that you did not cite any
shortwave source. I also did acknowledge that you did cite Reuters as
your source (even if inadvertently when you did a mindless cut-and
paste job), so I certainly did not claim that you "had to cite a
source".

BTW, I am also NOT conceding your cliam that hearing it on SW is
sufficient to make it on-topic. I claim that your standards for being
on-topic are so low that every irrelevant topic is included, and that
is not how I read the FAQ.