Mick: I have no desire to get into a pissing contest with you, anymore than I do Taliesn.

Your post took me to task because I did not reply to a GUEST. Before I even had a chance to reply (time constraints whatever) another Mudcat member stated an opinion and you took him to task. He refuted several points made by my retractor that you obviously accepted as fact, without any research of your own.

Your reply to Claymore was that you would need some time to research Guest's statements. You obviously took them as fact when you attacked me. Why research them? Because they supported your own point of view? Is that fair?

I seem to recall several posts you made over the past three or four years where you berated GUEST postings because they did not identify themselves and were presenting points of view that you did not agree with. I could research it if you wish, but I think your responses to Guest posts you found offensive were more vitrolic than most that I have posted here on the Mudcat.

As to your snide remark about my glib response, I assume you are referring to the one that I made in response to another Guest that suggested that I had a right to be a Puritan. I assumed Guest intended it as humor, and my reply was intended as humor also. Evidently you didn't take it that way.

The fact that I did not reply to the post I assume you refer to in your post (7:00 P.M. yesterday I think)is between me and GUEST, whoever that might be.

Kendall, Bobert, a few others and I were talking about lying. Is it acceptable? Were Clinton's lies worse than Reagan's? I expressed the opinion that Clinton's were worse because he did so under oath. A fine line, perhaps, but isn't that what the rule of law is all about? If you think it's acceptable, so be it.
What you think about it is your business, not mine.

DougR