Re: What 'War' Was That Idiot Talking about?

bvallely@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> On Jul 23, 11:47 am, George Grapman <sfgeo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> bvall...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>>> On Jul 23, 10:42 am, George Grapman <sfgeo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> bvall...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>>>>>  .
>>>>>>> You have a long history of simply ignoring posts after I've spent
>>>>>>> hours looking them up, or pretending they say things they simply
don't
>>>>>>> say.
>>>>> .
>>>>>>     Why would it take hours to find a recent lead story?
>>>>> .
>>>>> Ah, another casual lie from Grapeman.  I never said it would take
>>>>> hours.  The truth is that you're not worth any effort whatsoever.
>>> .
>>>>     You even quoted yourself above where you said I ignored posts
after
>>>> you "spent hours looking them up".>
>>> .
>>> And that is the truth.  However, that does not imply that all other
>>> research items will take hours.
>>> .
>>>> Once again you accuse me of lying for repeating what you said and
then you are kind enough to repost what you claim you never said.>
> .
>>> No, I accused you of lying for taking a statement of mine, and
>>> pretending that it means something other than what it means.  I never
>>> said that looking up the New York Times comment on Iraq would take
>>> hours - I wrote that OTHER references I sent you took hours.
> .
>>     Why would it take hours if it was the lead story?
> .
> I NEVER SAID IT WOULD TAKE HOURS.




http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/msg/f7dc059f47484498?hl=en&dmode=source

 >    I read at least three print papers each day including the NY Times
 > and several more on line. Since they were lead stories you should have
 > no trouble posting them.
..
The problem I have is not posting the article, it's wasting time
looking up articles for you.

You have a long history of simply ignoring posts after I've spent
hours looking them up, or pretending they say things they simply don't
say.