Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!execu!sequoia!rpp386!jfh From: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: more stupidity Message-ID: <18693@rpp386.cactus.org> Date: 4 Nov 90 19:26:35 GMT References: <18687@rpp386.cactus.org> Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) Organization: Lone Star Cafe and BBS Service Lines: 30 X-Clever-Slogan: Recycle or Die. In article karl_kleinpaste@cis.ohio-state.edu writes: >Mr Haugh, get a grip -- I didn't mention the concept of a lawsuit at >all. The sentence to which you evidently refer from article > is this: > >| And I hope my chance to testify on Len's behalf >| comes through. > >Now, the contextual problem is that you believe that I was referring >to a desire to testify _against_you_, which is not the case. so, how are you going to "testify" if there isn't a lawsuit filed by SOMEONE. here is the entire paragraph - "Thanx, Mr Haugh. Thanx a whole bunch. I hope Len quick-fries you to a crackly crunch. And I hope my chance to testify on Len's behalf comes through." so, let's see - someone is going to quick fry me. and karl is going to testify on that person's behalf. presumably, this testimony will help this person quick-fry me. now, even a high school dropout like myself can get from "X file suit against Y" and "Z testifies for X" to "Z testifies against Y". so guys, who brought up the mention of a lawsuit? clues anyone??? -- John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org "SCCS, the source motel! Programs check in and never check out!" -- Ken Thompson