On Sun, 15 Feb 2004, Stephanie and Tim wrote:


"Doan" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004, Stephanie and Tim wrote:

My interest in arguing with him is very diminished. He does not seem too
bright.

As I expected, you can't argue on facts and ended up resorting to ad-hom.
I am really disappointed. Nice chatting with you though. :-)

Regards,

Doan


I was not actually talking to you. I was referring to you in a reply to
Kane. As soon as you offer a refutation of one of my arguments, I will be
pleased to resume coversing with you.

S
Let's me see if I get this right. If I were to refer to you as a
"smelly-****" in a reply to Kane, that somehow make it OK???

Your arguments have been refuted, over and over. A glaring example is
your argument that only the victim can be the arbiter of abuse.
Otherwise, you could have nut-cases like Steve abusing infants to death
and claiming that it is ok. Do you think a baby can make a determination
of what abuse is???

Doan