On Oct 21, 4:08*pm, Hawke wrote:

You proved my point for me. The accusation was the Clinton people
"trashed" the White House. That sounds pretty severe to me. So what
really happened? Here is the list you gave: 62 keyboards, 26 cell
phones, two cameras, ten door knobs, and some medallions and signs were
removed.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't even call taking 62 keyboards and
26 cell phones "damage" to the White House at all. But the fact is the
report doesn't show any real damage done or that there was recklessness
or disrespectful treatment of the White House itself at all.

You read the report and I did and to me what it said is that the claims
that the White House was trashed was a lie. From what I see in the
report whatever was done was minimal at best. Is that not right?

Hawke



You have a convient memory. Your statement was

"Two things: first the story you just told above is bogus and was
refuted
by numerous sources. There was no damage done to the white house by
the
Clintons. I'm surprised you didn't know that story was false."

Note the words NO DAMAGE. No means none. It does not mean only
$20,000 in damages. $20,000 is way above the threshold from
misdemeanor to felony.

Dan

On 10/21/2011 5:43 PM, wrote:
On Oct 21, 4:08 pm, wrote:

You proved my point for me. The accusation was the Clinton people
"trashed" the White House. That sounds pretty severe to me. So what
really happened? Here is the list you gave: 62 keyboards, 26 cell
phones, two cameras, ten door knobs, and some medallions and signs were
removed.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't even call taking 62 keyboards and
26 cell phones "damage" to the White House at all. But the fact is the
report doesn't show any real damage done or that there was recklessness
or disrespectful treatment of the White House itself at all.

You read the report and I did and to me what it said is that the claims
that the White House was trashed was a lie. From what I see in the
report whatever was done was minimal at best. Is that not right?

Hawke



You have a convient memory. Your statement was

"Two things: first the story you just told above is bogus and was
refuted
by numerous sources. There was no damage done to the white house by
the
Clintons. I'm surprised you didn't know that story was false."

Note the words NO DAMAGE. No means none. It does not mean only
$20,000 in damages. $20,000 is way above the threshold from
misdemeanor to felony.

Dan




You're really grasping this time. Removing some keyboards from the White
House or some phones isn't doing "damage" to the property. From the
report you ought to be able to tell the White House was not "damaged".
Certainly there was no wanton and intentional damage by disgruntled
people leaving the place like they were accused of.

I told you that this story had been refuted years ago and it was. When
the charges were looked at it was clear that the White House was in good
shape when the Clinton's left and it was not "damaged". If you want to
call anything short of a model home damaged then there is no discussing
the issue with you. I used to be a real estate agent. Believe me, I know
what it looks like when a property is damaged.

Me, I'd question the 20K in damage too. According to whom? What's the
value of 62 keyboards and some used cell phones? 1000 bucks. The point
is there was a claim made that the Clinton's left the White House in
very bad condition and it sounded like it was done on purpose. These
claims were made by republican partisans. Then we see the report and
it's clear those claims were not true. But if you want go ahead and
believe that the Clinton's left a trail of destruction behind them when
they left, be my guest. I have no say so if you want to believe utter lies.

Hawke

On Oct 22, 8:35*pm, Hawke wrote:
On 10/21/2011 5:43 PM, wrote:



On Oct 21, 4:08 pm, *wrote:

You proved my point for me. The accusation was the Clinton people
"trashed" the White House. That sounds pretty severe to me. So what
really happened? Here is the list you gave: 62 keyboards, 26 cell
phones, two cameras, ten door knobs, and some medallions and signs were
removed.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't even call taking 62 keyboards and
26 cell phones "damage" to the White House at all. But the fact is the
report doesn't show any real damage done or that there was recklessness
or disrespectful treatment of the White House itself at all.

You read the report and I did and to me what it said is that the claims
that the White House was trashed was a lie. From what I see in the
report whatever was done was minimal at best. Is that not right?

Hawke

You have a convient memory. *Your statement was

"Two things: first the story you just told above is bogus and was
refuted
by numerous sources. There was no damage done to the white house by
the
Clintons. I'm surprised you didn't know that story was false."

Note the words NO DAMAGE. *No means none. *It does not mean only
$20,000 in damages. *$20,000 is way above the threshold from
misdemeanor to felony.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Dan

You're really grasping this time. Removing some keyboards from the White
House or some phones isn't doing "damage" to the property. From the
report you ought to be able to tell the White House was not "damaged".
Certainly there was no wanton and intentional damage by disgruntled
people leaving the place like they were accused of.

I told you that this story had been refuted years ago and it was. When
the charges were looked at it was clear that the White House was in good
shape when the Clinton's left and it was not "damaged". If you want to
call anything short of a model home damaged then there is no discussing
the issue with you. I used to be a real estate agent. Believe me, I know
what it looks like when a property is damaged.

Me, I'd question the 20K in damage too. According to whom? What's the
value of 62 keyboards and some used cell phones? 1000 bucks. The point
is there was a claim made that the Clinton's left the White House in
very bad condition and it sounded like it was done on purpose. These
claims were made by republican partisans. Then we see the report and
it's clear those claims were not true. But if you want go ahead and
believe that the Clinton's left a trail of destruction behind them when
they left, be my guest. I have no say so if you want to believe utter lies.

Hawke

I do not believe utter lies. I do believe what is in the GAO official
report. The 20k was according to he GAO.
The point is you said no damage and that is not true according to an
official government report.

It sounds as if it was done on purpose because it was. Removing key
caps is deliberate as in done on purpose.

If you want to believe there was no damage, be my guest. Just
remember not many people agree with you.

Dan

On 10/22/2011 7:41 PM, wrote:
On Oct 22, 8:35 pm, wrote:
On 10/21/2011 5:43 PM, wrote:



On Oct 21, 4:08 pm, wrote:

You proved my point for me. The accusation was the Clinton people
"trashed" the White House. That sounds pretty severe to me. So what
really happened? Here is the list you gave: 62 keyboards, 26 cell
phones, two cameras, ten door knobs, and some medallions and signs were
removed.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't even call taking 62 keyboards and
26 cell phones "damage" to the White House at all. But the fact is the
report doesn't show any real damage done or that there was recklessness
or disrespectful treatment of the White House itself at all.

You read the report and I did and to me what it said is that the claims
that the White House was trashed was a lie. From what I see in the
report whatever was done was minimal at best. Is that not right?

Hawke

You have a convient memory. Your statement was

"Two things: first the story you just told above is bogus and was
refuted
by numerous sources. There was no damage done to the white house by
the
Clintons. I'm surprised you didn't know that story was false."

Note the words NO DAMAGE. No means none. It does not mean only
$20,000 in damages. $20,000 is way above the threshold from
misdemeanor to felony.

Dan

You're really grasping this time. Removing some keyboards from the White
House or some phones isn't doing "damage" to the property. From the
report you ought to be able to tell the White House was not "damaged".
Certainly there was no wanton and intentional damage by disgruntled
people leaving the place like they were accused of.

I told you that this story had been refuted years ago and it was. When
the charges were looked at it was clear that the White House was in good
shape when the Clinton's left and it was not "damaged". If you want to
call anything short of a model home damaged then there is no discussing
the issue with you. I used to be a real estate agent. Believe me, I know
what it looks like when a property is damaged.

Me, I'd question the 20K in damage too. According to whom? What's the
value of 62 keyboards and some used cell phones? 1000 bucks. The point
is there was a claim made that the Clinton's left the White House in
very bad condition and it sounded like it was done on purpose. These
claims were made by republican partisans. Then we see the report and
it's clear those claims were not true. But if you want go ahead and
believe that the Clinton's left a trail of destruction behind them when
they left, be my guest. I have no say so if you want to believe utter lies.

Hawke

I do not believe utter lies. I do believe what is in the GAO official
report. The 20k was according to he GAO.
The point is you said no damage and that is not true according to an
official government report.

It sounds as if it was done on purpose because it was. Removing key
caps is deliberate as in done on purpose.

If you want to believe there was no damage, be my guest. Just
remember not many people agree with you.

Dan


What I believe is that the White House was left in good condition when
the Clinton's left it. I also believe that the accusation that it was
"trashed" when they left was a lie. I'm sure it wasn't left like a model
home when the Clinton's left but I don't think that there was anything
other than incidental and minor damage that would occur any time a large
group of people moved out of a large building. I wouldn't be surprised
that the White House was in even worse condition when the first Bush
moved out. Those kinds of things happen all the time. I doubt that even
you think the White House was trashed when the Clinton's moved out.
Don't forget, that is what was alleged. And that was a lie.

Hawke

On Oct 23, 5:46*pm, Hawke wrote:
On 10/22/2011 7:41 PM, wrote:



On Oct 22, 8:35 pm, *wrote:
On 10/21/2011 5:43 PM, wrote:

On Oct 21, 4:08 pm, * *wrote:

You proved my point for me. The accusation was the Clinton people
"trashed" the White House. That sounds pretty severe to me. So what
really happened? Here is the list you gave: 62 keyboards, 26 cell
phones, two cameras, ten door knobs, and some medallions and signs were
removed.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't even call taking 62 keyboards and
26 cell phones "damage" to the White House at all. But the fact is the
report doesn't show any real damage done or that there was recklessness
or disrespectful treatment of the White House itself at all.

You read the report and I did and to me what it said is that the claims
that the White House was trashed was a lie. From what I see in the
report whatever was done was minimal at best. Is that not right?

Hawke

You have a convient memory. *Your statement was

"Two things: first the story you just told above is bogus and was
refuted
by numerous sources. There was no damage done to the white house by
the
Clintons. I'm surprised you didn't know that story was false."

Note the words NO DAMAGE. *No means none. *It does not mean only
$20,000 in damages. *$20,000 is way above the threshold from
misdemeanor to felony.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dan

You're really grasping this time. Removing some keyboards from the White
House or some phones isn't doing "damage" to the property. From the
report you ought to be able to tell the White House was not "damaged".
Certainly there was no wanton and intentional damage by disgruntled
people leaving the place like they were accused of.

I told you that this story had been refuted years ago and it was. When
the charges were looked at it was clear that the White House was in good
shape when the Clinton's left and it was not "damaged". If you want to
call anything short of a model home damaged then there is no discussing
the issue with you. I used to be a real estate agent. Believe me, I know
what it looks like when a property is damaged.

Me, I'd question the 20K in damage too. According to whom? What's the
value of 62 keyboards and some used cell phones? 1000 bucks. The point
is there was a claim made that the Clinton's left the White House in
very bad condition and it sounded like it was done on purpose. These
claims were made by republican partisans. Then we see the report and
it's clear those claims were not true. But if you want go ahead and
believe that the Clinton's left a trail of destruction behind them when
they left, be my guest. I have no say so if you want to believe utter lies.

Hawke

I do not believe utter lies. *I do believe what is in the GAO official
report. *The 20k was according to he GAO.
The point is you said no damage and that is not true according to an
official government report.

It sounds as if it was done on purpose because it was. *Removing key
caps is deliberate as in done on purpose.

If you want to believe there was no damage, be my guest. *Just
remember not many people agree with you.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dan

What I believe is that the White House was left in good condition when
the Clinton's left it. I also believe that the accusation that it was
"trashed" when they left was a lie. I'm sure it wasn't left like a model
home when the Clinton's left but I don't think that there was anything
other than incidental and minor damage that would occur any time a large
group of people moved out of a large building. I wouldn't be surprised
that the White House was in even worse condition when the first Bush
moved out. Those kinds of things happen all the time. I doubt that even
you think the White House was trashed when the Clinton's moved out.
Don't forget, that is what was alleged. And that was a lie.

Hawke

So what you are saying is that you do not believe what was reported in
newspapers and by the GAO. What would you accept as proof?

Dan

On 10/23/2011 5:09 PM, wrote:
On Oct 23, 5:46 pm, wrote:
On 10/22/2011 7:41 PM, wrote:



On Oct 22, 8:35 pm, wrote:
On 10/21/2011 5:43 PM, wrote:

On Oct 21, 4:08 pm, wrote:

You proved my point for me. The accusation was the Clinton people
"trashed" the White House. That sounds pretty severe to me. So what
really happened? Here is the list you gave: 62 keyboards, 26 cell
phones, two cameras, ten door knobs, and some medallions and signs were
removed.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't even call taking 62 keyboards and
26 cell phones "damage" to the White House at all. But the fact is the
report doesn't show any real damage done or that there was recklessness
or disrespectful treatment of the White House itself at all.

You read the report and I did and to me what it said is that the claims
that the White House was trashed was a lie. From what I see in the
report whatever was done was minimal at best. Is that not right?

Hawke

You have a convient memory. Your statement was

"Two things: first the story you just told above is bogus and was
refuted
by numerous sources. There was no damage done to the white house by
the
Clintons. I'm surprised you didn't know that story was false."

Note the words NO DAMAGE. No means none. It does not mean only
$20,000 in damages. $20,000 is way above the threshold from
misdemeanor to felony.

Dan

You're really grasping this time. Removing some keyboards from the White
House or some phones isn't doing "damage" to the property. From the
report you ought to be able to tell the White House was not "damaged".
Certainly there was no wanton and intentional damage by disgruntled
people leaving the place like they were accused of.

I told you that this story had been refuted years ago and it was. When
the charges were looked at it was clear that the White House was in good
shape when the Clinton's left and it was not "damaged". If you want to
call anything short of a model home damaged then there is no discussing
the issue with you. I used to be a real estate agent. Believe me, I know
what it looks like when a property is damaged.

Me, I'd question the 20K in damage too. According to whom? What's the
value of 62 keyboards and some used cell phones? 1000 bucks. The point
is there was a claim made that the Clinton's left the White House in
very bad condition and it sounded like it was done on purpose. These
claims were made by republican partisans. Then we see the report and
it's clear those claims were not true. But if you want go ahead and
believe that the Clinton's left a trail of destruction behind them when
they left, be my guest. I have no say so if you want to believe utter lies.

Hawke

I do not believe utter lies. I do believe what is in the GAO official
report. The 20k was according to he GAO.
The point is you said no damage and that is not true according to an
official government report.

It sounds as if it was done on purpose because it was. Removing key
caps is deliberate as in done on purpose.

If you want to believe there was no damage, be my guest. Just
remember not many people agree with you.

Dan

What I believe is that the White House was left in good condition when
the Clinton's left it. I also believe that the accusation that it was
"trashed" when they left was a lie. I'm sure it wasn't left like a model
home when the Clinton's left but I don't think that there was anything
other than incidental and minor damage that would occur any time a large
group of people moved out of a large building. I wouldn't be surprised
that the White House was in even worse condition when the first Bush
moved out. Those kinds of things happen all the time. I doubt that even
you think the White House was trashed when the Clinton's moved out.
Don't forget, that is what was alleged. And that was a lie.

Hawke

So what you are saying is that you do not believe what was reported in
newspapers and by the GAO. What would you accept as proof?

Dan


The accusation was that the White House was trashed by the Clintons. I'm
telling you that is completely false, a lie. It was not trashed. What
the report said was there was some damage. It did not say the place was
trashed. So Dan, was it trashed or not? And what does trashed mean? A
little bit of minor damage or it was wrecked? In my book trashed means
it was left like it was trash. Did the report say it was in that kind of
condition? No. So it was a lie that the place was trashed.

Hawke

On Oct 25, 9:08*pm, Hawke wrote:


The accusation was that the White House was trashed by the Clintons. I'm
telling you that is completely false, a lie. It was not trashed. What
the report said was there was some damage. It did not say the place was
trashed. So Dan, was it trashed or not? And what does trashed mean? A
little bit of minor damage or it was wrecked? In my book trashed means
it was left like it was trash. Did the report say it was in that kind of
condition? No. So it was a lie that the place was trashed.

Hawke

This is the original accusation.

How about all the damage done to the White House by Billy Blowjob's
underlings before George W moved in ($15,000 worth of damage: ripping
phone cords from the walls, defacing bathrooms, leaving obscene
voicemail messages, and removing the "W" keys from the keyboards);
proud of that, too, Dave?

Note carefully the word trashed is not in this statement. Note the
original statement said $15,000 in damages. That is less than what
the official report said. You claimed the original statement was
false, but the official report says it was true. In face of this
overwhelming evidence why don't you admit you were wrong. Continuing
to claim you are right just shows you are extremely biased.


Dan

On 10/26/2011 5:03 AM, wrote:
On Oct 25, 9:08 pm, wrote:


The accusation was that the White House was trashed by the Clintons. I'm
telling you that is completely false, a lie. It was not trashed. What
the report said was there was some damage. It did not say the place was
trashed. So Dan, was it trashed or not? And what does trashed mean? A
little bit of minor damage or it was wrecked? In my book trashed means
it was left like it was trash. Did the report say it was in that kind of
condition? No. So it was a lie that the place was trashed.

Hawke

This is the original accusation.

How about all the damage done to the White House by Billy Blowjob's
underlings before George W moved in ($15,000 worth of damage: ripping
phone cords from the walls, defacing bathrooms, leaving obscene
voicemail messages, and removing the "W" keys from the keyboards);
proud of that, too, Dave?

Note carefully the word trashed is not in this statement. Note the
original statement said $15,000 in damages. That is less than what
the official report said. You claimed the original statement was
false, but the official report says it was true. In face of this
overwhelming evidence why don't you admit you were wrong. Continuing
to claim you are right just shows you are extremely biased.


Dan



Well, all I can tell you is that I was a real estate agent for a number
of years. I've seen all kinds of property damage during that time. The
way I interpreted the accusation against the Clinton's to be was one
where they "trashed" the place. That is the term I heard when I first
heard the story. But from what I have been able to find out since then
is that story was bullcrap.

The White House is a multimillion dollar property. Fifteen thousand in
damage is very little to that size property that isn't really a house
but is a commercial building as well. When you have one administration
leave the other comes in and does wholesale changes, so if some damage
is done when in the process it's not a big deal. In fact from my
perspective the entire thing is not a big deal.


You seem to be wanting it to be so you can prove something negative
about the Clintons. So either they did something really, really, bad
when they left or they didn't. I don't think they did anything even
worth mentioning. But you're making a mountain out of a molehill. The
question is why? You have a an agenda of trying to make the Clinton's
out to be villains or you can't accept that I'm right? Whatever it is
you're really grasping at straws and look desperate. If I were you I
would give up while you can.

Hawke

On Oct 26, 5:59*pm, Hawke wrote:



Well, all I can tell you is that I was a real estate agent for a number
of years. I've seen all kinds of property damage during that time. The
way I interpreted the accusation against the Clinton's to be was one
where they "trashed" the place. That is the term I heard when I first
heard the story. But from what I have been able to find out since then
is that story was bullcrap.

There was no reason to do any interpreting. You need to read what
people write.

The White House is a multimillion dollar property. Fifteen thousand in
damage is very little to that size property that isn't really a house
but is a commercial building as well. When you have one administration
leave the other comes in and does wholesale changes, so if some damage
is done when in the process it's not a big deal. In fact from my
perspective the entire thing is not a big deal.

Big deal or small deal. The fact is the original post said about
$15,000 damage. You said there was no damage. You did not say that
$15,000 was no big deal. Again you said no damage in reply to a
statement that there was $15,000 damage. I take that as saying there
was no damage. You could have said insignificant amount of damage,
but no you had to claim " no damage ". That is a response to a
statement of $15,000 damage. If the truth was there was only $500
damage, you might get by with claiming it was not significant damage.
But the truth is there was more damage than the original poster
claimed, and you say the original statement was false.


You seem to be wanting it to be so you can prove something negative
about the Clintons. So either they did something really, really, bad
when they left or they didn't. I don't think they did anything even
worth mentioning. But you're making a mountain out of a molehill. The
question is why? You have a an agenda of trying to make the Clinton's
out to be villains or you can't accept that I'm right? Whatever it is
you're really grasping at straws and look desperate. If I were you I
would give up while you can.

Hawke

No I am not trying to prove something negative about the Clintons. I
am proving that you make incorrect statements. I may be making a
mountain out of a mole hill, but the reason is that you will not or
can not reply to clearly worded statements with a rational response.
Why do you insist on denying that you were wrong. It is quite obvious
that you will deny anything negative about any Democrat. You should
admit you were wrong and not keep trying to find an out when it is
obvious to anyone that you are wrong.


Dan

On 10/26/2011 4:54 PM, wrote:
On Oct 26, 5:59 pm, wrote:



Well, all I can tell you is that I was a real estate agent for a number
of years. I've seen all kinds of property damage during that time. The
way I interpreted the accusation against the Clinton's to be was one
where they "trashed" the place. That is the term I heard when I first
heard the story. But from what I have been able to find out since then
is that story was bullcrap.

There was no reason to do any interpreting. You need to read what
people write.

Everything written needs to be interpreted. That's the way language
works. It's complicated and filled with subtleties that have to be
interpreted. You seem to want to interpret everything as if it's a
scientific statement and not a simple dialogue between two people. I
don't think you have a clue as to what a figure of speech is.


The White House is a multimillion dollar property. Fifteen thousand in
damage is very little to that size property that isn't really a house
but is a commercial building as well. When you have one administration
leave the other comes in and does wholesale changes, so if some damage
is done when in the process it's not a big deal. In fact from my
perspective the entire thing is not a big deal.

Big deal or small deal. The fact is the original post said about
$15,000 damage. You said there was no damage. You did not say that
$15,000 was no big deal. Again you said no damage in reply to a
statement that there was $15,000 damage. I take that as saying there
was no damage. You could have said insignificant amount of damage,
but no you had to claim " no damage ". That is a response to a
statement of $15,000 damage. If the truth was there was only $500
damage, you might get by with claiming it was not significant damage.
But the truth is there was more damage than the original poster
claimed, and you say the original statement was false.

The way I see it is in a multimillion dollar building that is changing
hands from one political party to another if only 15K is damaged in the
process I'm going to say that's no damage. That doesn't mean nothing was
damaged it means the damage was so slight that it's not worth
mentioning. For example, someone may say all the walls have holes in
them from pictures and they all have to be filled and the walls
repainted. To you that's damage. It's not to me. It may cost thousands
to fill the holes and repaint, that's true but I wouldn't say that's
damage. Damage is when things are purposely destroyed or ruined.
Intentionally! I heard nothing to suggest the White House had that kind
of damage.




You seem to be wanting it to be so you can prove something negative
about the Clintons. So either they did something really, really, bad
when they left or they didn't. I don't think they did anything even
worth mentioning. But you're making a mountain out of a molehill. The
question is why? You have a an agenda of trying to make the Clinton's
out to be villains or you can't accept that I'm right? Whatever it is
you're really grasping at straws and look desperate. If I were you I
would give up while you can.

Hawke

No I am not trying to prove something negative about the Clintons. I
am proving that you make incorrect statements. I may be making a
mountain out of a mole hill, but the reason is that you will not or
can not reply to clearly worded statements with a rational response.
Why do you insist on denying that you were wrong. It is quite obvious
that you will deny anything negative about any Democrat. You should
admit you were wrong and not keep trying to find an out when it is
obvious to anyone that you are wrong.


Okay, I've given numerous criticisms of Democrats here so that you can't
seriously say I have never criticized them. You can look up where I have
criticized them numerous times. But would you expect to find me making
diatribes against Democrats when everyone knows by now that I hold the
republicans responsible for our economic problems. My criticism of
republicans is based on observable facts not just a whim. But I have
criticized the Democrats and you ought to know that by now.

But here's your problem. Did you see the movie Crocodile Dundee? There
was a scene in one of those movies in NY where someone with a knife came
up and tried to rob Dundee and his girl. The girl said give him our
money, he's got a knife. Dundee says, that's not a knife. Then he pulls
out one of his own which was huge and he says, now this is a knife. If I
wrote that to you it would go right over your head because you would
think that because Dundee said that's not a knife you would think it
wasn't a knife. In reality it was a knife but it was a small one. That
is what Dundee was saying when he said "That's not a knife". See what I
mean. Sometimes that's not a knife means that is a knife.

Ever time I do something like that you get it wrong. When I say no
damage was done it means it was a pittance, minor, not worth mentioning,
not that absolutely nothing was damaged. I was trying to get across the
real point which was that there were anti Clinton shots taken at them by
right wingers to make them look bad. Those were unfair and unjustified.
That's the point. Was there some incidental damage to the White House,
of course. There always is but that's really not even worth bringing up.

Hawke

On Oct 26, 8:51*pm, Hawke wrote:

The White House is a multimillion dollar property. Fifteen thousand in
damage is very little to that size property that isn't really a house
but is a commercial building as well. When you have one administration
leave the other comes in and does wholesale changes, so if some damage
is done when in the process it's not a big deal. In fact from my
perspective the entire thing is not a big deal.



Hawke

Still trying to worm your way out of not admitting you were wrong.

The original post said there was $15,000 in damages. You said that
was false, there was no damage. And now you are saying $15,000 damage
is no damage.

Logically you can not say the original poster was wrong.

You claim to have an IQ above the average, but you sure are not
showing it in this discussion.

Dan