Mr Fastblacks wrote:
How plain do you want it? Perhaps the sentence in its entirety should have read "When the Salteri document was there, the directory listing taken at that time would have shown it." Maybe I credit you with a modicum of common sense?
"When the Salteri document was there, the directory listing taken at that time would have shown it."
To me that sounds a bit too much like saying that if you'd done a directory listing at the time then the Salteri document would have been included, but in fact you didn't, so it wasn't
If you'd said:
"When the Salteri document was there, the directory listing taken at that time showed it".
Then that would be indicicative of the fact that you did have or produce a directory listing at that time, and the Salteri document was in it.
To your credit, I think that means that you're not a very good liar
If you'd produced the list at the time and/or said precisely how you'd found it then you would not have raised suspicions, but of course you didn't, and in all probability took a week to come up with your rather weak excuse.
Quote:
Tell me why I or anyone else should join in your little games. You and your colleagues do not even have the honesty to give your real names and email addresses. I do not answer to you or your kind.
Must be why there ares so many anonymous posters on your forum then. And it's also amazing how worked up you seem to be getting about me 'and my kind' and have to call me and others liars
And anonymity is not about honesty - are you saying that you can only be honest by not posting anonymously?
Quote:
How I found the file is secondary to the questions raised about your involvement in an Edinburgh matter contrary to your repeated claims of non-interference.
All the evidence points to you prying into the private messages to find the document via a URL posted there, so surely this is of primary importance?
And how can you say that a document that I didn't even know about proves my 'interference' in Edinburgh?
By the way, have you read my latest piece "A tale of two cities" posted on our homepage - that's about the extent of my involvement, but thankfully there are others getting more involved to expose the rather dubious practices of ECC.
Quote:
It gets worse by the minute, hour, year, whatever, because I am not here to teach you basic IT or basic manners and I most certainly have no intentions of bowing to your demands
You're certainly starting to sound a bit imperious, thus your failure to answer the question is perhaps hardly surprising.
But if you want everyone to think that you've been ferreting about in the private messages posted in good faith on your site then that's your problem
Quote:
On the contrary, it is you who have reacted out of all proportion to this revelation in order to mask your wrongdoing.
What wrongdoing? You call me a liar on evidence that isn't even worthy of the description 'flimsy' and all this on the basis of a confidential document found by looking at confidential messages, and then posted for the whole world to see on your site.
I know who's guilty of wrongdoing, and it ain't me
Quote:
Surprise! Surprise! You're wrong on all counts again, since it is you who are prolonging this
So why have you ignored repeated requests to disclose you exactly you found the document - answer: because you've been trying to think up an excuse to cover your tracks. And you still can't even explain how you found the document at that time, just provide a list of URLs that anyone can find.
Yes, like on here, where you can't block me replying to you like you did on your own forum
Quote:
Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeelllllllllllllllllllll since I am still upset that no apologies have been forthcoming. NO
Apologies for what?
And have you removed the various defamatory allegations about me and this site?
No need for an apology - you're not man enough for that - but any chance of removing them?
Login
Register
FAQ
