in article cas6gj$n4e$2@news.Stanford.EDU, mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net at
mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote on 6/17/04 10:32 PM:

> Ernest Schaal <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote:
>> in article caqpgb$j8k$2@news.Stanford.EDU, mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net at
>> mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote on 6/17/04 9:43 AM:
> 
>>> Ernest Schaal <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote:
>>>> in article capi7q$jvj$3@news.Stanford.EDU, mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net at
>>>> mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote on 6/16/04 10:33 PM:
> 
>>>>> Sorry, but you're wrong again.
>>> 
>>>> Your previous comments are ambiguous and you have made absolutely no
>>>> attempt
>>>> to reduce that ambiguity.
>>> 
>>> My comments were clear; you are attempting to get a value judgement from
>>> me. Failing that, you fabricate your own, in order to refute it.
> 
>> No, your comments were not clear,
> 
> Sorry, did you not understand "a disproporionate cut to the very rich"?

I can guess at what you meant, but it would only be a guess.

> If no, why are you arguing?
> 
> If so, they were clear and you are wrong.

You response isn't very persuasive, is it? I mean, why should I believe that
I am wrong when you can't explain why?

>> and your ego is so weak that rather than
> 
> Really, psychology isn't your thing, is it?
> 
> Mike

If it isn't your ego being weak, why are you afraid to clarify what you
wrote?

No, I don't expect you respond in an intelligent manner. I did have that
hope earlier, but I don't now.