bmeadows666 at gmail.com
Wed Jan 16 00:33:45 CET 2013
On 01/15/2013 02:17 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 9:39 PM, Richard HILLS wrote:
>> One very intelligent but misguided blmler has unintentionally misguessed
>> my intentions over the past three-and-a-half years.
> Not possible. Richard HILLS (RH) obviously intended to change words
> and leave his edited version of the statement as if it was the
> original posters' own words. Also, RH has repeatedly changed words
> and phrases for "humorous" effect, especially or exclusively for those
> he disagreed with, such as Herman. (Is this not common knowledge on
> BLML?) There is essentially zero chance that this was accidental.
>> Richard Hills, unreserved apology, January 2013:
>> The best kind of an apology is a mutual apology. So I unreservedly
>> apologise to Jerry Fusselman, Robert Frick and Brian Meadows for both
>> my intentional and unintentional offences against them, especially me
>> slinging mud with my uncivil euphemism-free language.
> Funny! Thanks to RH for including my name in a sentence with Robert
> Frick and Brain Meadows. That's great company! I admire their posts
> on BLML. They're good for BLML.
>> No doubt those
>> three gentleman will likewise unreservedly apologise for their use of
>> uncivil euphemism-free language against me.
As I've stated before, Richard Hills is one of only two BLMLers with a
permanent place in my kill-file. I therefore didn't see the above
until Jerry quoted it back.
I've made my views of RH's behaviour very clear, and I was very
specific about my complaints. At such point as RH can provide
verifiable evidence of my having perpetrated his sort of tactics in
any public reply to one of his postings, then and *ONLY* then will he
get his return apology. Absent such evidence, he's getting nothing of
More information about the Blml