Posted by AP [AP] on November 09, 1999 at 20:10:30 {4Hfg918T5g/CPYT8orz2MAe0EfOyQM}:
I have something that I will post a bit later that should put matters regarding AF's actions in perspective, and focus in (closely!) on that to which he cannot and will not, apparently, accept: his spreading of lies and misinformation about me, and his rather amazing appeal to the biblical principle of two witnesses, to support his appeal to two unknown witnesses who have yet to offer a word in his defense. Still, he has somehow convinced himself that there is nothing wrong with this picture. Well, as I said, more on that later.
I thought we might all take a moment or two and reflect on a small part of AF's response to my apology. On the issue of his misleading others about my TWO Travis posts, he replied, in part:
Posted by AF [AF] on November 09, 1999 at 10:30:37 {4Hfg918T5gDjRmAxB/kMdaOt1gg/Zk}:
In Reply to: Apology posted by GregStafford on November 08, 1999 at 22:12:06:
AF:
My, my. Your ability to fit so many errors of fact and logic into a single paragraph is impressive. For one thing, I never said that I didn’t read your 2nd Travis post; I did say rather clearly that I do not remember reading it.
END OF QUOTE
Aside from the meaningless puffery in the first sentence, which he so often substitutes for genuine argumentation, AF would actually have us believe that only a couple of days after the Travis posts, he did not remember the second one! Indeed, he is now saying that “I never said that I didn’t read your 2nd Travis post; I did say rather clearly that I do not remember reading it.” Is this what AF really said?
My friends, can someone explain how the above is consistent with what we next read:
Posted by AF [AF] on November 06, 1999 at 18:54:07 {p8g/8h8r5Q1EwaxRomAMdaOt1gg/Zk}:
In Reply to: TravisJ45 Post II? posted by Adam Covington on November 06, 1999 at 13:34:31:
AC
: What is your justification for not giving a complete picture by posting both posts?
AF
Are you entirely braindead? As far as I'm aware, Greg made one and only one post under the name ‘TravisJ45’. If you're aware of another, be sure to point to it.
END OF QUOTES
No, I don’t mean to draw your attention to AF’s typical, response-beginning insult, but look at what he says in response to AC’s question about BOTH Travis posts: “As far as I'm aware, Greg made one and only one post under the name ‘TravisJ45’. If you're aware of another, be sure to point to it.”
So, back on 11-06 AF is not aware of any second post. Indeed, as far as he is “aware” “Greg made one and only one post under the name ‘TravisJ45’.” Now, on 11-09, he says, “I never said that I didn’t read your 2nd Travis post; I did say rather clearly that I do not remember reading it.”
Again, according to AF:
11-06: “As far as I'm aware, Greg made one and only one post under the name ‘TravisJ45’. If you're aware of another, be sure to point to it.”
11-09: “I never said that I didn’t read your 2nd Travis post; I did say rather clearly that I do not remember reading it.”
AF, my dishonest friend, I realize you have some secret dictionary that allows you to attach new meanings to words like “rather clearly,” but for those of us in the real world, can you explain yourself? Are you suggesting that on 11-06 you were not aware of the post, but that you had read it? When one says, with emphasis (AF bolded “one and only one” in his post), that you are aware of “one and only one” Travis post, does that not mean YOU DID NOT READ A SECOND ONE, otherwise you would have been “aware” of it, also?
Apok