Nested Calls

[Jose Lerebours]

Yeah, go ahead and wait ... lol


On 05/03/2018 09:38 PM, Fairlight via Filepro-list wrote:
> On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 08:56:52PM -0400, Jose Lerebours via Filepro-list thus spoke:
>> On 05/03/2018 07:15 PM, Fairlight via Filepro-list wrote:
>>>> BTW I do not know how this thread got to clickable links.  I will have
>>>> to re-read.
>>> "Jose."
>> Not really ... but as it is said round the political arenas: what
>> difference does it make?
> I've never heard any politician pose that rhetorical question if they
> weren't the guilty party.
>
> And yes, really.  You point me at the post where someone other than
> you brought up clickable links.  I don't believe it exists.  It's all
> searchable on http://lists.celestial.com/pipermail/filepro-list if you want
> to provide backup for your claim.  So go ahead.  I'll wait.
>
> The first mention I see of the hot/clickable links in the thread is yours:
>
> SOURCE 1:
> http://dorsai-01.celestial.com/pipermail/filepro-list/2018-May/034511.html
>
> There's zero mention prior to that of any such thing.  The thread
> originated with Ron in this post:
>
> SOURCE 2:
> http://dorsai-01.celestial.com/pipermail/filepro-list/2018-May/034508.html
>
> I sure as hell made no reference to clickable links, and your message which
> did was a response to my post, which was a response to the OP. so your
> phrasing in source #1 seemed as weird a segue out of the blue then as it
> does tonight.
>
> Then, as a matter of searchable public record, you -explicitly- said you
> were trying to bait someone (presumably Bob, since he did pipe up) into
> chiming in:
>
> SOURCE 3:
> http://dorsai-01.celestial.com/pipermail/filepro-list/2018-May/034522.html
>
> So yes, REALLY.  I can source my claims, or I'd qualify them pretty
> explicitly as opinion.  That's a long-standing habit of mine which I rarely
> break.  Can you source yours?  Luck with that; I've already checked, and I
> see no evidence to support your version of history.
>
> I'm trying to discern if you're gaslighting, or simply not with-it enough
> to know what you're talking about any longer.  The point is probably
> academic, as you're full of it either way, IMNSHO.  The proof to illustrate
> as much is readily available.  Hell, I've seen Trump go longer before
> contradicting himself.  You're not even trying anymore.
>
> mark->