From: "Mark" 

I find your explanation to be lacking and your conclusion that it would
cause a "kneejerk" reaction to be specious. But do try again.

Next time though, please try and have a position instead of wasting time
with your lame games -- why on God's green Earth would anyone post anything
if they "had no position to support?" 


"Don Hills"  wrote in message
news:NOC+CtgaX6xd092yn{at}attglobal.net...
> In article , "Mark"
 wrote:
>>
>>Hmm, but you chose to start a thread with no post to read at all -- all
>>you
>>did was craft a headline (or paste one as a subject line) and provide a
>>url
>>without comment. Perhaps had you provided commentary whilst using that url
>>as a buttress for your position, I'd have followed the link to see why you
>>thought that source supported your position.
>
> As I said to Gary, I chose the subject header carefully. And I made no
> comment because I don't have a position to support. I posted it because it
> was true as far as it went and I knew it would provoke a kneejerk
> reaction,
> just like Gary does when he posts stuff from Fox News and asserts that it
> is
> the One True source.
>
> --
> Don Hills    (dmhills at attglobaldotnet)     Wellington, New Zealand
> "New interface closely resembles Presentation Manager,
> preparing you for the wonders of OS/2!"
>    -- Advertisement on the box for Microsoft Windows 2.11 for 286

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5