Now here's some happy news...

On Apr 15, 11:17*am, wrote:

Er, wrong as usual. *I admitted that I didn't know a specific fact, not that I
don't know what I'm talking about. *And, um, in fact, to be picky about it, I
did know exactly what I was talking about and was 100% correct: I said (with
full knowledge that I didn't know a certain fact) that I didn't know that
certain fact, and therefore, was absolutely correct in saying it because I
didn't know that certain fact, thus making my statement an absolutely correct
and accurate statement of the facts as they pertain to the certain fact....

Jeezus, Richard ... that's as fine a bit of lawyerese doublespeak
as I've read in a long while.

Klinton would be proud.

Sorry for the interruption. Please do carry on.


Chuck Vance

wrote:
On Apr 15, 11:17 am, wrote:

Er, wrong as usual. I admitted that I didn't know a specific fact, not that I
don't know what I'm talking about. And, um, in fact, to be picky about it, I
did know exactly what I was talking about and was 100% correct: I said (with
full knowledge that I didn't know a certain fact) that I didn't know that
certain fact, and therefore, was absolutely correct in saying it because I
didn't know that certain fact, thus making my statement an absolutely correct
and accurate statement of the facts as they pertain to the certain fact...

Jeezus, Richard ... that's as fine a bit of lawyerese doublespeak

hey now...ease up on such talk...unless and until you've paid a proper
fee, one can never really appreciate the true art of lawyerese-ing. g

jeff