ardelm at optusnet.com.au
Mon Jun 4 00:45:09 CEST 2012
Non dWS denier, Jerry Fusselman expounds:
As usual, I find Robert both clear and correct. I would voice my
agreements with Robert Frick on BLML more often if his arguments needed
clarification, but he is often too clear for me to feel that I can add
Richard Hills's posts often make me cringe due to his almost daily use
of slander, ridicule, and ad hominem attacks. Therefore, I lately avoid
reading Richard Hill's words except possibly when someone else quotes
him. The quotes provide more than enough of his slander, etc., for me.
Personally, I think anyone exhibiting such behavior as Richard's so
often (or even much less often) should be banned from BLML regardless of
the frequency of valuable contributions (which is also high in Richard's
case), but maybe that's just me. I do sincerely mean regardless.
[tony] farbeit from me to defend Richard. I would simply point out that
it is not
only Richard, but most of the European contingent who have patiently
out Robert's errors in Law, and interpretation of the FLB. I personally
not sure whether Robert is yet clear on the difference between an
revoke and an established revoke.
As one who takes BLML for entertainment (and for the tax deduction), I
not continue were Richard to remove himself from the list. In the
Grattan, David B, Marvin and several others, this list is as boring as
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Blml