Taharqa wrote:Jumping from the slim evidence and gossip that exists on the issue to a claim of malfeasance is a leap of faith.
And surprisingly effective. Lookit all the little gribblies scurrying around now that that scurrilous Frank with his mean ol' axe turned their rock over!
And entertaining. Lookit all the sputtering going on, everything from 'He didn't say exactly that' to 'you haven't defined your terms, sir!' to 'smear him, smear him quick!'.
You wanna know why I don't give you any credibility, Tarq? It's because of one of the tricks you tried to pull a few pages back. 'When all else fails, discredit the source of the bad news'. Rather than find something solid that could counter Frank's statements (and it's hard - there is little to deny after you strip away his personal opinions), you impugned his reputation, his judgement and his motivation.
In other words, you were aiming a kick at Frank's goodies
That smacks of scoundrelism, and that, sir, is why I suspect you are in bed with - if not actually one of - the 'involved parties'.
Especially since you seem to think Internet Infidels-style discourse - arguing about
arguing, for Pete's sake! - has any bearing on what's happening in this thread. That's the way the 'involved parties' think, too. Distract the rubes and while they're all watching the fight, we can do what we please
Wait and see.
Cent13