"Matthew Kirkcaldie" <m.kirkcaldie at removethis.unsw.edu.au> wrote in message
news:m.kirkcaldie-3755BE.11160324022004 at tomahawk.comms.unsw.edu.au...
> In article <iyl_b.18156$hm4.12657 at newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> "k p Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote:
>> > I stand on what =I've= discussed [not caring
> > to discuss the rest].
>> Ken, do you reckon we could just take
> it as read that you stand on what you've
> posted and discussed, instead of you
> needing to tell us that you stand on what
> you've posted every ten minutes?
> Dogmatism is not a substitute for reasoned
> argument, nor is it impressive.
>> If someone disagrees with you, responding
> that you stand on what you've posted
> contributes nothing except to inform us that
> you stand on what you've posted; since
> you've posted it, we will assume you stand
> on what you've posted, unless you happen to
> notify us that you DON'T stand on
> what you've posted.
It's been Agony for me, but, if you look,
you'll see that there was a 'challenge',
inherent, that had to be Met-Forthrightly.
I've explained what I've been doing in
another reply that I posted a couple of
=Thank You= for what I've received as
Cheers, Matthew, ken