Sherry Shaw wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>>
>> ...both absolutely and relatively. I merely pointed out that they do, 
>> which you dismissed...
>>
> 
> I did not dismiss it.  I said it was *appropriate* that they do so.

OK. So I'm still not sure what your point is, but I guess you don't care.

> One of your links worked.  That was the page that contained the table to 
> which you apparently referred.  The other link was nonfunctional.

I dunno. Works for me, continues to work for me. Of course, it points to 
a PDF, so if your PDF software is screwed, maybe it doesn't work for 
you.  Of course, simply saying "that link didn't work for me" rather 
than ranting on as if I didn't provide any authoritative links at all 
would have probably worked out better. And then asking repeatedly for 
clarification of what's already in that first document, instead of 
saying "I can't read that first document."

> I suggest that you re-read your posts, paying special attention to tone.

And I suggest you re-read yours, paying special attention to blatent 
insults.

> I have no more time for this discussion.

A shame. I was kind of curious what your point may have been, given that 
you seemed to be complaining and most people don't complain about things 
that are working they way they think they should.  I mean, why "rant" if 
what you're ranting about is "wealthy people should pay a lot of tax, 
and they do!"

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message