Sorry Laurence, I didn't realize that what I thought
was common knowledge, as it's been beaten to death and
back again, wasn't..if you take my meaning (who says
that alot...?).
Mark asked for the 2/3 data. Someone gave him the
link. Another advised that the data was ancient and
not of any use. AND THEN you come on and mutter about
the data existing, therefore it is carved in some
ancient elven rune of truth that musn't be disputed.
(oops, I did it again!) (I bet all you who didn't know
the first will at least know who says THAT.).
Thusly, I apologize for jumping at you. After reading
the references to the site, and remembering ('cause I
was paying attention) the whole "what's relevant data"
debate ad nauseum in late Dec and early Jan, I then
read your post. I should have realized that you had
merely replied to the post in order of reading, and
hadn't yet realized that the issue had been killed
again already.
Sorry again, and thanks for irking me to the point
where I had to visit your site, as while I was there,
I gleaned useful emissary information regarding
recruiting other characters on your own personal tidbit
page.
Regards,
Brad Brunet
···
On Sat, 03 March 2001, "Laurence G. Tilley" wrote:
That's an offensive, and deliberate misquoting of what I said, which was
that I didn't have the inclination to go searching through the sites for
someone else, not that it was beneath me to do so.A subsequent poster told us which site the data was on, and the original
poster appeared to know of _no_ extant data to support the 2/3rds
statement. He did not say that he'd seen "old" data, and that there was
no fuller data. Suggest that it is you, who should pay more attention.Regards,
__________________________________________________________
Get your FREE personalized e-mail at http://www.canada.com
