<HTML>R. Avry Wilson wrote:
[...]
> you don't know the details.
[...]
> you wouldn't being saying that if you knew more.
[...]
>reasons your not even aware of.
So you keep asserting; but asserting it is all you have done, but have not offered (on this M
the actual evidence that supports these assertions. All anyone on this MB can comment on is what you have actually deigned to divulge on this MB. If you choose to post a partial account of events, don't you think it's a tad silly to then berate responders for responding to that partial account?
Instead of telling people that they "don't know the details", or that they "wouldn't being saying that" if they "knew more", or that there are "reasons your [sic] not even aware of", why don't you just post the "details" and "reasons"? I'm assuming that these "reasons" and "details" actually exist, of course.
This is a discussion forum; the implication is that if you want to discuss something, post it here and discuss it openly, OR, if you don't want it discussed, don't post it in a discussion forum in the first place. To withhold relevant information, and to then complain when people aren't aware of what you've withheld, has every appearance of either being a cheap debating trick, or being an attempt to create a mysterious shroud of secrecy in which only supposition, rumour and innuendo can thrive. I'm sure that you wouldn't knowingly do either of these things, and that you would wish to divulge a full account of events in order to correct any false impression that you may have inadvertently created.</HTML>