Bob Klahn -> John Massey wrote:
 JM>> JIM HOLSONBACK -> EARL CROASMUN wrote:
 JH>>> Hello, Earl.  We've been missing you here.

 JH>>> Two questions - -

 JH>>> 1. In the below post, while cleverly trying to hide behind
 BK> something he
 JH>>> claims Stan has said, Klahn accuses J. Massey of being
"guilty of
 JH>>> plagiarism". Since the material at Boortz's website is
copyrighted, I
 JH>>> believe that plagiarizing it could theoretically be found
 BK> illegal.  Is
 JH>>> Klahn's accusation in violation of Echo Rules?

 JM>>>> WE HAVE TO GET THE TAXES RAISED ... AND FAST!

 JM>> I guess where it came from is more important than the idea.

I was talking about the idea in the Boortz piece.

 BK>  Since you know that I dismissed the accusation against you in
 BK>  the Debate echo, that is a contemptable deception on your part.

You dismissed the accusation, what a choice of words. You expressed your
ideas about how it was proper to attribute something and that I should .
But bottom line you said, what I did wasn't against the rules and you were
not going to get involved.
The last part of the above was a good decision.


 BK>  And the idea was stupid, and fraudulent, so the source is
 BK>  important. So we don't attribute it to the wrong fool.

 BK>  Ultimately the accusation is against Stan, so just chill out
 BK>  while it works it's way out.

Ah,, Bob,  I got it. I saw the slam was against Stan. And I saw you take
something that I do and will continue to do and use it as something to try
and start something between Stan and me. If Stan ever said any thing to me
about why I don't always attribute stuff, he would get the same answer I
gave you. "I have my reasons."
I have suggested that people that get bent out of shape over the issue, 
People that don't seem to have any problem finding out who wrote it BTW,  
turn me in to the Boortz webmaster or the Boortz's legal team.

--- Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326)