J
John Retchford
Guest
Drs wrote:
> First, how about you getting the attributions correct. I never made any
> such claim, I was quoting someone else's response to what I wrote and
> you've removed the context I provided. He's the ****** in need of a
> reality check, not me, and as far as I know he's not even reading this
> group. And there's no need for you to edit "****ty".
1. If you did not write the quoted material, I apologise. My new
reader attributes it to you. Perhaps your quoting of others was to
subtle for me
2. I did not edit your good Saxon word. That was done by Cycling Forums
through which I posted. When I look at your post with Google Group
your word is intact, but not when I look with Cycling Forums, wh
must feel that such basic functions are not fit for my eyes and m
unedited reply not fit for yours. You will probably find it altere
again in this reply
I gather now that we were both mocking the same original exaggerator
Cheers
John Retchfor
-
> First, how about you getting the attributions correct. I never made any
> such claim, I was quoting someone else's response to what I wrote and
> you've removed the context I provided. He's the ****** in need of a
> reality check, not me, and as far as I know he's not even reading this
> group. And there's no need for you to edit "****ty".
1. If you did not write the quoted material, I apologise. My new
reader attributes it to you. Perhaps your quoting of others was to
subtle for me
2. I did not edit your good Saxon word. That was done by Cycling Forums
through which I posted. When I look at your post with Google Group
your word is intact, but not when I look with Cycling Forums, wh
must feel that such basic functions are not fit for my eyes and m
unedited reply not fit for yours. You will probably find it altere
again in this reply
I gather now that we were both mocking the same original exaggerator
Cheers
John Retchfor
-