in article dnb4e0pq8nvpm3uph25g5150cltbve7pch@4ax.com, Raj Feridun at
rferid@NOSPAMyahoo.co.jp wrote on 6/30/04 12:14 PM:

> On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 11:17:20 +0900, Ernest Schaal
> <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote:
> 
>> I thought you agreed to disagree. If you do not apology for breaking the
>> truce you proposed, I will respond.
> 
>> It is extremely dishonest and hypocritical of you to expect me to continue
>> simply agreeing to disagree when you post the nonsense above. You can't have
>> it both ways.
> 
>> By the way, I noticed that this message of yours occurred over an hour and a
>> half after you thanked me for agreeing to disagree.
> 
> Oh, OK, I see how it works. Agreeing to disagree means YOU can
> continue to banter on and opine ad infinitum and I can sit there and
> be quiet, right?
> 
> I don't think so.
> 
> Do as you say you will in this group, Ernest. You've got a shoddy
> track record in that regard.
> 
> Raj
> 
> Instead of calling my post "nonsense" why don't you just invoke your
> rights under the 5th Amendment? You are American, right?
> 

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

After I agreed with you on this, I didn't post another message on this
thread until I get you message of about an hour ago, a message you had
posted that was in response to a message I posted days ago and that you had
respond to days ago, so don't give me any lie that you hadn't seen the
message before.

According to Google, my message was posted on 27 Jun and you responded on
the same day.

Boy are you a hypocrite!

You wonder why I feel so vastly superior to you, and then you do this crap?

Maybe Mike is right about you.