Surprise surprise, the ABD and its lies are behind the anti road-pricing petition.

[Matt B]

Steve wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Matt B says...
>>
>> IMHO, to draw this out, to this degree, hints at a very sinister
>> ulterior motive on your part. Would you care to explain your reasons?
>>
>>
> My guess is that his motive was to demonstrate that you are an ********
> who doesn't let the facts get in the way of a good argument

How ironic.

--
Matt B

 

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 10:47:24 +0000, Matt B
<"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:

>Steve wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, Matt B says...
>>>
>>> IMHO, to draw this out, to this degree, hints at a very sinister
>>> ulterior motive on your part. Would you care to explain your reasons?
>>>
>>>
>> My guess is that his motive was to demonstrate that you are an ********
>> who doesn't let the facts get in the way of a good argument
>
>How ironic.


No, not irony at all.

You have completely failed to explain why, in the face of direct
evidence to the contrary and with any evidence to support, you
suggested that the petitioner was NOT a member of the ABD; further,
you have failed, despite repeated opportunities, to reply to this
question:

Are you also a member of the ABD?

 

[Matt B]

[email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 10:47:24 +0000, Matt B
> <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>
>> Steve wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>, Matt B says...
>>>> IMHO, to draw this out, to this degree, hints at a very sinister
>>>> ulterior motive on your part. Would you care to explain your reasons?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> My guess is that his motive was to demonstrate that you are an ********
>>> who doesn't let the facts get in the way of a good argument
>> How ironic.
>
> No, not irony at all.

I was vindicated - you were exposed. That /is/ ironic.

> You have completely failed to explain why, in the face of direct
> evidence to the contrary and with any evidence to support, you
> suggested that the petitioner was NOT a member of the ABD; further,
> you have failed, despite repeated opportunities, to reply to this
> question:

I answered it fully and completely. You chose to
ignore/misinterpret/twist the answer - that was /your/ downfall.

--
Matt B

 

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 12:50:44 +0000, Matt B
<"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 10:47:24 +0000, Matt B
>> <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Steve wrote:
>>>> In article <[email protected]>, Matt B says...
>>>>> IMHO, to draw this out, to this degree, hints at a very sinister
>>>>> ulterior motive on your part. Would you care to explain your reasons?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> My guess is that his motive was to demonstrate that you are an ********
>>>> who doesn't let the facts get in the way of a good argument
>>> How ironic.
>>
>> No, not irony at all.
>
>I was vindicated - you were exposed. That /is/ ironic.
>

How were you vindicated - you have even admitted on this newsgroup
that your assertion was incorrect:

"As it transpires anyway, the Times was right."

And you have not told us if you are or are not yourself a member of
the ABD. Is there a reason for avoiding this question?

 

[Matt B]

[email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 12:50:44 +0000, Matt B
> <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 10:47:24 +0000, Matt B
>>> <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>> In article <[email protected]>, Matt B says...
>>>>>> IMHO, to draw this out, to this degree, hints at a very sinister
>>>>>> ulterior motive on your part. Would you care to explain your reasons?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> My guess is that his motive was to demonstrate that you are an ********
>>>>> who doesn't let the facts get in the way of a good argument
>>>> How ironic.
>>> No, not irony at all.
>> I was vindicated - you were exposed. That /is/ ironic.
>
> How were you vindicated - you have even admitted on this newsgroup
> that your assertion was incorrect:
>
> "As it transpires anyway, the Times was right."

There you go again - digging deeper. I never asserted anything - I
questioned an assertion.

I didn't fall into the trap of assuming, from one newspaper article that
we had the complete story. When the information was later confirmed
from "the horses mouth" I acknowledged it. You can call me a doubting
Thomas if you like - but nothing more.

> And you have not told us if you are or are not yourself a member of
> the ABD. Is there a reason for avoiding this question?

Is there a reason for asking the question?

--
Matt B

 

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 14:26:34 +0000, Matt B
<"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> My guess is that his motive was to demonstrate that you are an ********
>>>>>> who doesn't let the facts get in the way of a good argument
>>>>> How ironic.
>>>> No, not irony at all.
>>> I was vindicated - you were exposed. That /is/ ironic.
>>
>> How were you vindicated - you have even admitted on this newsgroup
>> that your assertion was incorrect:
>>
>> "As it transpires anyway, the Times was right."
>
>There you go again - digging deeper. I never asserted anything - I
>questioned an assertion.
>


The times did not "assert" - assertion is the product of opinion. The
Times *reported* - the product of fact. You said that the petitioner,
contrary to the facts reported by the Times, "might well not be" a
member - even though you knew that the facts had been reported as
otherwise.

Why

a) did you do so without a shred of evidence;

and

b) now that your assertion has been admitted false by yourself, do you
claim this as a "vindication"?

 

[Matt B]

[email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 14:26:34 +0000, Matt B
> <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My guess is that his motive was to demonstrate that you are an ********
>>>>>>> who doesn't let the facts get in the way of a good argument
>>>>>> How ironic.
>>>>> No, not irony at all.
>>>> I was vindicated - you were exposed. That /is/ ironic.
>>> How were you vindicated - you have even admitted on this newsgroup
>>> that your assertion was incorrect:
>>>
>>> "As it transpires anyway, the Times was right."
>> There you go again - digging deeper. I never asserted anything - I
>> questioned an assertion.
>
> The times did not "assert" - assertion is the product of opinion.

Yes, I know. It was the assertion of a PP that I was replying to - this
one in fact: "Anyhow, I see that true to form the Telegraph doesn't
highlight that Roberts is actually and ABD activist."

> The
> Times *reported* - the product of fact.

Not necessarily fact, of course, but as I said it was an assertion I was
addressing.

> You said that the petitioner,
> contrary to the facts reported by the Times, "might well not be" a
> member - even though you knew that the facts had been reported as
> otherwise.

Do you assume everything you read in every newspaper is a /fact/ - or
just things that comply with your preconceptions? I need more evidence
of a fact than a newspaper report.

> Why
>
> a) did you do so without a shred of evidence;

Yes, there was only a single newspaper report, no other evidence.

> and
>
> b) now that your assertion has been admitted false by yourself, do you
> claim this as a "vindication"?

What assertion? Can you not understand the difference between an
assertion and the questioning of an assertion - apparently not.

That is the vindication - like it or not.

And the answer to my question at the bottom of my previous post is?

--
Matt B

 

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 16:06:35 +0000, Matt B
<"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 14:26:34 +0000, Matt B
>> <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My guess is that his motive was to demonstrate that you are an ********
>>>>>>>> who doesn't let the facts get in the way of a good argument
>>>>>>> How ironic.
>>>>>> No, not irony at all.
>>>>> I was vindicated - you were exposed. That /is/ ironic.
>>>> How were you vindicated - you have even admitted on this newsgroup
>>>> that your assertion was incorrect:
>>>>
>>>> "As it transpires anyway, the Times was right."
>>> There you go again - digging deeper. I never asserted anything - I
>>> questioned an assertion.
>>
>> The times did not "assert" - assertion is the product of opinion.
>
>Yes, I know. It was the assertion of a PP that I was replying to - this
>one in fact: "Anyhow, I see that true to form the Telegraph doesn't
>highlight that Roberts is actually and ABD activist."
>
>> The
>> Times *reported* - the product of fact.
>
>Not necessarily fact, of course, but as I said it was an assertion I was
>addressing.

No, you have now changed and claim that it was the assertion of "...a
PP..." - which was not whether the petitioner was a member of ABD, but
that another newspaper did not comment on his membership in any way.
If so, the claim you make (the petitoner is not a member of the ABD)
is farcical, since we already had the fact of his membership reported,
and thus claiming

a) that he was not; and

b) that this claim (that he was not) is a counter to the noting that
another paper did not comment of his membership in any way

makes no sense.


>> You said that the petitioner,
>> contrary to the facts reported by the Times, "might well not be" a
>> member - even though you knew that the facts had been reported as
>> otherwise.
>

>> Why
>>
>> a) did you do so without a shred of evidence;
>
>Yes, there was only a single newspaper report, no other evidence.
>
>

But that evidence directly contradicted your assertion - you cannot
claim it as support. You had no shred of evidence to support your
claim, why did you advance it?

Are you a member of the ABD?

 

[Matt B]

[email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 16:06:35 +0000, Matt B wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> The
>>> Times *reported* - the product of fact.
>> Not necessarily fact, of course, but as I said it was an assertion I was
>> addressing.
>
> No, you have now changed and claim that it was the assertion of "...a
> PP..." - which was not whether the petitioner was a member of ABD, but
> that another newspaper did not comment on his membership in any way.

Eh?

> If so, the claim you make (the petitoner is not a member of the ABD)
> is farcical, since we already had the fact of his membership reported,
> and thus claiming

I never made that claim. All I did was question /whether/ he was.

> a) that he was not; and
>
> b) that this claim (that he was not) is a counter to the noting that
> another paper did not comment of his membership in any way
>
> makes no sense.

It does to me and all the other right minded thinkers here. where does
that leave you?

>>> You said that the petitioner,
>>> contrary to the facts reported by the Times, "might well not be" a
>>> member - even though you knew that the facts had been reported as
>>> otherwise.
>
>>> Why
>>>
>>> a) did you do so without a shred of evidence;
>> Yes, there was only a single newspaper report, no other evidence.
>
> But that evidence directly contradicted your assertion

What assertion - the one that we already established that I never made?

> - you cannot
> claim it as support. You had no shred of evidence to support your
> claim, why did you advance it?

What claim? The one that one cannot believe everything that one reads
in a newspaper?

> Are you a member of the ABD?

You haven't told us why you need to know yet.

Are you drunk?

--
Matt B

 

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 16:44:47 +0000, Matt B
<"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 16:06:35 +0000, Matt B wrote:
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>> The
>>>> Times *reported* - the product of fact.
>>> Not necessarily fact, of course, but as I said it was an assertion I was
>>> addressing.
>>
>> No, you have now changed and claim that it was the assertion of "...a
>> PP..." - which was not whether the petitioner was a member of ABD, but
>> that another newspaper did not comment on his membership in any way.
>
>Eh?
>
>> If so, the claim you make (the petitoner is not a member of the ABD)
>> is farcical, since we already had the fact of his membership reported,
>> and thus claiming
>
>I never made that claim. All I did was question /whether/ he was.
>

Why did you do so?

The reported facts were entirely to the contrary, and you had no shred
of evidence to support that he was not.

Are you also a member of the ABD?

 

[Matt B]

[email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 16:44:47 +0000, Matt B
> <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 16:06:35 +0000, Matt B wrote:
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The
>>>>> Times *reported* - the product of fact.
>>>> Not necessarily fact, of course, but as I said it was an assertion I was
>>>> addressing.
>>> No, you have now changed and claim that it was the assertion of "...a
>>> PP..." - which was not whether the petitioner was a member of ABD, but
>>> that another newspaper did not comment on his membership in any way.
>> Eh?
>>
>>> If so, the claim you make (the petitoner is not a member of the ABD)
>>> is farcical, since we already had the fact of his membership reported,
>>> and thus claiming
>> I never made that claim. All I did was question /whether/ he was.
>
> Why did you do so?

To alert readers that it was not a foregone conclusion.

> The reported facts were entirely to the contrary, and you had no shred
> of evidence to support that he was not.

The report may have contained an error. The title didn't give me a warm
feeling as to its impartiality.

> Are you also a member of the ABD?

Why do you need to know?

--
Matt B

 

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 17:05:24 +0000, Matt B
<"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 16:44:47 +0000, Matt B
>> <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>>
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 16:06:35 +0000, Matt B wrote:
>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The
>>>>>> Times *reported* - the product of fact.
>>>>> Not necessarily fact, of course, but as I said it was an assertion I was
>>>>> addressing.
>>>> No, you have now changed and claim that it was the assertion of "...a
>>>> PP..." - which was not whether the petitioner was a member of ABD, but
>>>> that another newspaper did not comment on his membership in any way.
>>> Eh?
>>>
>>>> If so, the claim you make (the petitoner is not a member of the ABD)
>>>> is farcical, since we already had the fact of his membership reported,
>>>> and thus claiming
>>> I never made that claim. All I did was question /whether/ he was.
>>
>> Why did you do so?
>
>To alert readers that it was not a foregone conclusion.

It was not a conclusion in any sense at all, it was a FACT, reported
by the Times. A fact which was entirely the opposite of what you then
asserted.

>
>> The reported facts were entirely to the contrary, and you had no shred
>> of evidence to support that he was not.
>
>The report may have contained an error.

And we know now (as we knew then) that it was instead YOU who made the
error; and did so with no shred of evidence to support your assertion.

Why did you decide to claim the opposite of the fact reported by the
Times?

Are you a member of the ABD?

 

[Matt B]

[email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 17:05:24 +0000, Matt B
> <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 16:44:47 +0000, Matt B
>>> <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 16:06:35 +0000, Matt B wrote:
>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>> Times *reported* - the product of fact.
>>>>>> Not necessarily fact, of course, but as I said it was an assertion I was
>>>>>> addressing.
>>>>> No, you have now changed and claim that it was the assertion of "...a
>>>>> PP..." - which was not whether the petitioner was a member of ABD, but
>>>>> that another newspaper did not comment on his membership in any way.
>>>> Eh?
>>>>
>>>>> If so, the claim you make (the petitoner is not a member of the ABD)
>>>>> is farcical, since we already had the fact of his membership reported,
>>>>> and thus claiming
>>>> I never made that claim. All I did was question /whether/ he was.
>>> Why did you do so?
>> To alert readers that it was not a foregone conclusion.
>
> It was not a conclusion in any sense at all, it was a FACT, reported
> by the Times.

As I have said, now, with hindsight and corroborating evidence it
appears that it /is/ a fact.

> A fact which was entirely the opposite of what you then
> asserted.

I didn't make an assertion, I was merely questioning one.

>>> The reported facts were entirely to the contrary, and you had no shred
>>> of evidence to support that he was not.
>> The report may have contained an error.
>
> And we know now (as we knew then)

We didn't /know/, some of us may have /assumed/.

> that it was instead YOU who made the
> error; and did so with no shred of evidence to support your assertion.

I didn't make an error, I raised a concern. I didn't make an assertion,
I commented upon one.

> Why did you decide to claim the opposite of the fact reported by the
> Times?

I didn't, I raised the possiblity.

> Are you a member of the ABD?

Why do you need to know? Are you?

--
Matt B

 

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 17:25:22 +0000, Matt B
<"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 17:05:24 +0000, Matt B
>> <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>>
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 16:44:47 +0000, Matt B
>>>> <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 16:06:35 +0000, Matt B wrote:
>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>> Times *reported* - the product of fact.
>>>>>>> Not necessarily fact, of course, but as I said it was an assertion I was
>>>>>>> addressing.
>>>>>> No, you have now changed and claim that it was the assertion of "...a
>>>>>> PP..." - which was not whether the petitioner was a member of ABD, but
>>>>>> that another newspaper did not comment on his membership in any way.
>>>>> Eh?
>>>>>
>>>>>> If so, the claim you make (the petitoner is not a member of the ABD)
>>>>>> is farcical, since we already had the fact of his membership reported,
>>>>>> and thus claiming
>>>>> I never made that claim. All I did was question /whether/ he was.
>>>> Why did you do so?
>>> To alert readers that it was not a foregone conclusion.
>>
>> It was not a conclusion in any sense at all, it was a FACT, reported
>> by the Times.
>
>As I have said, now, with hindsight and corroborating evidence it
>appears that it /is/ a fact.
>

Yes, and it was a fact then, and there was (and is) absolutely no
evidence that it was not a fact.

Why reason did you have for asserting the opposite?

Are you also a member of the ABD?

 

[Matt B]

[email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 17:25:22 +0000, Matt B
> <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 17:05:24 +0000, Matt B
>>> <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 16:44:47 +0000, Matt B
>>>>> <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 16:06:35 +0000, Matt B wrote:
>>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>> Times *reported* - the product of fact.
>>>>>>>> Not necessarily fact, of course, but as I said it was an assertion I was
>>>>>>>> addressing.
>>>>>>> No, you have now changed and claim that it was the assertion of "...a
>>>>>>> PP..." - which was not whether the petitioner was a member of ABD, but
>>>>>>> that another newspaper did not comment on his membership in any way.
>>>>>> Eh?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If so, the claim you make (the petitoner is not a member of the ABD)
>>>>>>> is farcical, since we already had the fact of his membership reported,
>>>>>>> and thus claiming
>>>>>> I never made that claim. All I did was question /whether/ he was.
>>>>> Why did you do so?
>>>> To alert readers that it was not a foregone conclusion.
>>> It was not a conclusion in any sense at all, it was a FACT, reported
>>> by the Times.
>> As I have said, now, with hindsight and corroborating evidence it
>> appears that it /is/ a fact.
>>
>
> Yes, and it was a fact then,

Of course, but at that time we din't /know/ it.

> and there was (and is) absolutely no
> evidence that it was not a fact.

No, and none was claimed.

> Why reason did you have for asserting the opposite?

I made no assertion. I was commenting on an assertion.

> Are you also a member of the ABD?

Why do you need to know? Are you a member yourself?

--
Matt B

 

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 17:59:00 +0000, Matt B
<"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:

>
>I made no assertion. I was commenting on an assertion.
>

You asserted that inspite of the fact reported by the Times, the
petitioner might not be a member of the ABD. This was not a
"comment", it was (if untrue and without a shred of evidence to
suggest so; which conditions are fully satisfied) an attempt to
mislead the readers of u.r.c.

Upon what did you base your assertion?

Why did you attempt to mislead the readers of u.r.c.?

Are you also a member of the ABD?

 

[Buck]

On 01/17/2007 18:22:00 [email protected] wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 17:59:00 +0000, Matt B
> <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:

>> I made no assertion. I was commenting on an assertion.

> You asserted that inspite of the fact reported by the Times, the
> petitioner might not be a member of the ABD. This was not a "comment", it
> was (if untrue and without a shred of evidence to suggest so; which
> conditions are fully satisfied) an attempt to mislead the readers of
> u.r.c.

> Upon what did you base your assertion?

> Why did you attempt to mislead the readers of u.r.c.?

> Are you also a member of the ABD?

He "asserted" that someone "might not be" something?

Adj. asserted - confidently declared to be so

Saying somebody "might" not be something is hardly an assertion.

--

Buck

Give a little person a little power and create a big problem.

http://www.catrike.co.uk

 

[Matt B]

[email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 17:59:00 +0000, Matt B
> <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>
>> I made no assertion. I was commenting on an assertion.
>
> You asserted that inspite of the fact reported by the Times, the
> petitioner might not be a member of the ABD.

No, I merely suggested that was a possibility.

> This was not a
> "comment",

It was a comment about an assertion.

> it was (if untrue and without a shred of evidence to
> suggest so; which conditions are fully satisfied) an attempt to
> mislead the readers of u.r.c.

No, when it comes to "an attempt to mislead the readers of u.r.c." I
think you need to examine your own axtions.

> Upon what did you base your assertion?

What assertion?

> Why did you attempt to mislead the readers of u.r.c.?

No, remember, that was you.

> Are you also a member of the ABD?

Are you interested because you are yourself a member?

--
Matt B

 

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 18:35:36 GMT, Buck
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
>On 01/17/2007 18:22:00 [email protected] wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 17:59:00 +0000, Matt B
>> <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>
>>> I made no assertion. I was commenting on an assertion.
>
>> You asserted that inspite of the fact reported by the Times, the
>> petitioner might not be a member of the ABD. This was not a "comment", it
>> was (if untrue and without a shred of evidence to suggest so; which
>> conditions are fully satisfied) an attempt to mislead the readers of
>> u.r.c.
>
>> Upon what did you base your assertion?
>
>> Why did you attempt to mislead the readers of u.r.c.?
>
>> Are you also a member of the ABD?
>
>He "asserted" that someone "might not be" something?
>
>Adj. asserted - confidently declared to be so
>
>Saying somebody "might" not be something is hardly an assertion.

You need to read the original assertion - it has been paraphrased.

And seeing as it was in direct contradiction to the facts which had
been posted, and there was no evidence to support it, and it comes
from a noted troll, it seems a mendacious attempt to mislead the
readers of u.r.c.

 

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 18:48:36 +0000, Matt B
<"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 17:59:00 +0000, Matt B
>> <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I made no assertion. I was commenting on an assertion.
>>
>> You asserted that inspite of the fact reported by the Times, the
>> petitioner might not be a member of the ABD.
>
>No, I merely suggested that was a possibility.
>

It was not a possibility - the facts opposite had been reported.

Why did you decide to tell us that they were not true?

What evidence did you have?

Are you also a member of the ABD?