T
Tom Crispin
Guest
On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 15:00 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
[email protected] (Terry) wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] (Tom Crispin) wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 09:21 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
>> [email protected] (Terry) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <[email protected]>,
>> >[email protected] (Tom Crispin) wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 19:22 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
>> >> [email protected] (Terry) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <[email protected]>,
>> >> >[email protected] (Tom Crispin) wrote:
>> >
>> >> >> 3. Rumours at the time were that the driver was a rastaurant
>> >> >> owner in Greenwich.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 4. Other later rumours were that the driver was pulling over
>> > > to >>> use the toilet.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Rumour is what you're spreading.
>> >>
>> >> I am not spreading rumour.
>> >
>> >Edited for clarity.
>>
>> Reporting a rumour as being just a rumour isn't spreading a rumour.
>
>On which planet does that hold true?
>
>The rumour you have spread is essential to connecting the driver to the
>restaurants. Your use of it constitutes conjecture. You would have done
>better to take your own advice & wait for the facts to emerge. As it
>stands you have set the table for the hard of thinking & bigots.
I have made no positive connection between Mr Voong and the
restaurants - only a possibility of their being a connection based on
fact and circumstantial evidence. I have always made that clear.
[email protected] (Terry) wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] (Tom Crispin) wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 09:21 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
>> [email protected] (Terry) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <[email protected]>,
>> >[email protected] (Tom Crispin) wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 19:22 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
>> >> [email protected] (Terry) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <[email protected]>,
>> >> >[email protected] (Tom Crispin) wrote:
>> >
>> >> >> 3. Rumours at the time were that the driver was a rastaurant
>> >> >> owner in Greenwich.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 4. Other later rumours were that the driver was pulling over
>> > > to >>> use the toilet.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Rumour is what you're spreading.
>> >>
>> >> I am not spreading rumour.
>> >
>> >Edited for clarity.
>>
>> Reporting a rumour as being just a rumour isn't spreading a rumour.
>
>On which planet does that hold true?
>
>The rumour you have spread is essential to connecting the driver to the
>restaurants. Your use of it constitutes conjecture. You would have done
>better to take your own advice & wait for the facts to emerge. As it
>stands you have set the table for the hard of thinking & bigots.
I have made no positive connection between Mr Voong and the
restaurants - only a possibility of their being a connection based on
fact and circumstantial evidence. I have always made that clear.