On Sep 4, 10:42 pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 11:05:30 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt



wrote:
On Sep 4, 7:12 am, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 19:34:32 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt

wrote:
On Sep 3, 5:53 pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 09:51:58 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt

...

Where I grew up, deliberately misattributing a person's remarks to
a different person was considered to be dishonest. AFAIK, the
same is true for documents submitted to a court in support
of an indictment.

Indeed. Now which part attributed the wrong remarks to the wrong
person?

In you wrote:

Why not ask the **** herself?

Yes?

And then referred us to words written by others, none of
whom quoted her.

Yes? So if she was not quoted, what did you learn?

About her, nothing.

Perhaps you should drop an email to her Campaign headquarters and see
what her stance on Family Values are?

Why?

Has it changed in the last 16 years?

The posts I linked, indicated thats what she is going to include in
her campaign.

Maybe they did, maybe they did not. Definitively, they did not
as you had claimed, include anything from herself.

Since they indicated she is going to feature Family Values..it would
seem logical to anyone with more than 4 firing neurons...that its an
indication of her intent, and that you should verify with the ****
herself, as I suggested.

OTOH if you have at least two neurons to rub together you
understand that is irrelevant to my complaint, that you
referred to material written by other people as being
from herself.

Seems your reading comprehension issues have once again caused you to
**** in your messkit.

Again my complaint is with your misattribution of the authorship
of the material you cited, and has has nothing to do with the
putative
veracity of the material.

...

Pity...seems you are unable to comprehend what I wrote. Ill try
harder to communicate on your level next time.


I object because I understand.

--

FF