>
>
>> Autopsies are still dependant on interpretation and
>> imagination as to causes of damage.
>
>Speaking of which, Rich was to have rcvd some tubes
>for just that purpose on the weekend. Did I miss the
>results while I was out pouting?
>
>Rich keeps wanting to know who designed the "origianal"
>AL-80. I presume the implication is that Tom did. So
>what?
>
Dennis Had originally owned Ameritron.
>I also asked Rich to send me the e-mail to which he keeps
>referring from sometime in 1996. All I wanted to read
>was the ONE post to which he continues to refer where
>Tom made some great ERROR, per Rich.
>
The biggie was the 28-November post he tried to cancel. The cancelation
worked with DejaNews. It did not work with Wil's archive - so I was able
to retrieve the cancelled post. Rauch has consistently stonewalled the
subject ever since.
>But, what I rcvd was enough reading material to last
>from now into next year sometime -- you wouldn't believe
>how many e-mails, and all the headers and indentations
>as they overran the formats of the various "old" email
>programs being used in those days, etc.!
It is undoubtedly a whopper.
>I do not want
>to read all this same stuff we read to day, as it was
>also expressed 4 years ago. All I wanted was the ONE
>key problem point to which Rich continually berates
>at Tom!
28-Nov. is it. Try asking Tom why he cancelled.
>
>So, I am no better off than before in my attempt to really
>understand what Rich continually refers to. If it is some
>aura, spread out across months of back and forth e-mails,
>that will do me, at least, absolutely no benefit.
>
>As to the format of the debate today, Rich ALWAYS includes
>all the preceding threat re-posts, or what ever they are called,
>with usually only a few cryptic words somewhere along the
>long, long way, or right at the very end!!
>
>That is why this thread on this reflector can become so
>confounded irritating!! R-sup vs. Rs vs. Q is/is not important,
>vs. ............ SO WHAT are your attempting to achieve, Rich????
>
>To completely and absolutely "trash" Tom R. ??? If so,
>for what possible useful to the world reason? I guess
>just for your own ego purpose ......
>
For a long time, Tom tried to get me to debate him on the Internet.
cheers, Jim.....
- Rich..., 805.386.3734, www.vcnet.com/measures.
end
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/amps
Submissions: amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-amps@contesting.com
|