Posted by Friend [Friend] on November 09, 1999 at 17:01:00 {4Hfg918T5ghxaL3hj3H2OgnjR4Br/g}:
In Reply to: ****Censorship or Moderation? posted by Marquis on November 09, 1999 at 15:59:41:
Marquis
Then the police made an investigation and found there was no evidence Joe did rob the said bank.
No, I did not say that. I said, "The police dropped the case against him." Yours is an extrapolation. It is more than conceivable that evidence may support guilt but not to the point of prosecution.
According to your "logic" Joe should have been convicted, because someone SAID he was guilty.
Please demonstrate where I indicated that Joe was guilty or innocent, or should have been freed or convicted. You will find neither. You should consider this post to Kent, you two think just alike.
Now that we have this little red herring of Kent’s out of the way, let’s get back to my challenge to your post, which I see you have totally ignored. Are you going to answer my questions by reconciling them with your expressed views of H2O or not?
Friend