"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 03:02:21 GMT, Alex Chaihorsky wrote:
>
>> "Derek" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 01:01:35 GMT, Alex Chaihorsky wrote:
>>
>
> What on earth would make you think that she WOULD take the offer? You have
> something to gain (or preserve). She doesn't because she doesn't care.

Excuse me? She could have taken the offer, and if I would not be able to
supply the proof of me being truthful get $5,000 of MY MONEY.
What do you mean "she does not care"? She claims that she is so-oo poor that
all she can spare is meager $15! This was her chance not only to prove that
she was right calling me a liar but also afford some very good tea!

> Obviously, you thought this a more pressing matter than either she or I
> did. But if I were in a similar position, I wouldn't put up the money
> either - even if I had it.

And that would show people that you are an irresponsible flamer who does not
stand by his words.

>
> This is just USENET, after all. And I find it hard to believe that your
> professional opinion is weak enough that it can be undermined by the
> uninformed opinions of a single crank.

I am sorry, but this is bull. This is how it goes:
A question in a board room "Mr. Derek, is it true that you were publically
accused by a member of an academic community of knowingly publishing false
of fabricated information?". Mind you, this is not court, where you can
investigate, call you lawyer, etc. This is academic or business community
and you would start to explain what happened and how and what I said and she
said... No, what you say is "Yes, and I offered an accuser to put up or
shut up and she chosen the latter". End of story. Now you can choose a
different strategy, but I was attacked without provocation and that is how I
respond to such attacks.
>
>
> I'm not critical of you defending yourself. I'm critical of the way you
> chose to do it - because it appears to be dishonorable, and I don't
> believe
> you to be a dishonorable guy

Well, in that case you have to tell me what would be an honorable way. But
do not tell me to just let it go, because then you have no idea what honor
is. The last thing I want to do is to insult you here but your quote "If you
want to get to the top, prepare to kiss a lot of the bottom." already make
me worried if we ever will understand each other on wsuch issues.

>
> You and I have had our disagreements in the past, but they were always
> minor. And I've found you to be a fairly reasonable fellow. That is why I
> bothered to comment to you, and not to her.
>
> You see, I no longer bother to throw my pearls before swine, either online
> or off.

That is your choice and I can respect it. I prefer to whip up the swine that
had an audacity to question my honor and expose its ugly mug to the public.
Personal choices. Free country, you know.

>
>> You have posted already three
>> times on this thread and not a one word on her attacks on me (and others,
>> BTW, too). Can you elaborate on that?
>
> Yes. I haven't seen any of her posts in this thread save the last one.
> It's
> been a while since I read RFDT on my laptop and her previous posts are no
> longer on my NNTP server. Additionally, because she uses the X-No-Archive
> header, any posts older than 6 days are no longer available on Google.

They are still available on the USENET, that is how I found them a month
later. Use your MS Outlook Express.
But if you have not read them, you could have asked and I would provide you
with the links.

>
> I haven't criticized her "attacks" because I haven't read them. I won't
> critique on hearsay. Her subsequent response to your "solution" suggests
> that it wouldn't have been worth the time anyway.

It is a very troubling approach - to critisize one side for something minor
(you yourself admitted that) and let the swines (your words, not mine) to
have a pass just because they are swines. Makes swines proliferate.


Respectfully,
Sasha

>Derek.