David, let's leave this. I'm not interested in quarrelling any more with you or your ghostly informer about something of such little importance, and shouldn't have got distracted from the main topic in the first place.
Jamie
> On 29 Oct 2016, at 12:51, David Lace <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Jaime, I would be willing to apologise for my tone, but can’t see anything to apologise regarding what I said.
>
> You say that you “might willingly consider that [an apology to me] when you've either retracted your claim based on hearsay about my habitual dealings with the list”, but I can’t be sure it’s hearsay. It was told to me by someone here longer than I have been on the list. I can’t simply not believe them just because you say so. Besides given the plea you made to the list regarding me, to hear of another plea years ago, leads me to think what the person said is true. What is possibly at issue is was that previous plea justified unlike the one you have made regarding me, which most people I think would say was unnecessary.
>
> On this whether you made a previous plea or not issue, if you can address the point I made earlier when I was responding to what you said about such a plea being non-existent, we might get some forward movement in this. My response was:
>
> ‘You say “You’re welcome to find the supposed incident, but I believe when you do you’ll see there were reasons for my protest which have nothing to do with the “petulance” of which keep accusing me”. You seem to be admitting that the incident happened because you say "there were reasons for my protest". But that they had "nothing to do with the “petulance” of which keep accusing me”. That’s what I’d like to find out. I can only go on how you are handling this current incident.’
>
> You begin saying here that the incident is “supposed” then you say "there were reasons for my protest”—if the incident/plea did not occur then how can you say "there were reasons for my protest”.
>
> Until this paradox is solved, I have to believe the person who emailed me that the previous plea did in fact occur, so I can't in all honesty apologise for believing this person until they have been proved wrong.
>
>
>
>
> -------------Original Message------------
>
> Jamie McKendrick wrote:
>
>
> I might willingly consider that when you've either retracted your claim based on hearsay about my habitual dealings with the list, which you tauntingly call throwing my 'toys out of the pram' and crying 'foul' so as to win an argument. And apologised for it as well as for the rest of your personalised and jeering posts to me.
> Otherwise let's be content with this sort of courteous stalemate.
> Jamie
|