🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <7427@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes:
:
>
>Not only was this "quote" taken out of context, but it was also *edited*
>to insure giving the incorrect information.
:

I don't know about your postnews program, but mine specifically asks me
to "trim the quoted article down as much as possible." I'm sorry that you
feel the result presented your comments out of context, but I vigorously
object to the assertion that this was deliberate. Why should I reconstruct
your message into a form that makes my stomach churn merely for the dubious
pleasure of replying to the result? A sense of proportion, please.

So far, I have provided a short answer to a short question; I have been told,
without substantiation, that I was wrong; I have provided an extensive sup-
porting excerpt from the relevant Intel document; and now I am being accused
of the worst sort of intellectual dishonesty. No wonder it's so hard to get a
question answered anymore.

My use of sarcasm may have been inappropriate, but it's a long way from there
to the sort of ad hominem attack in your reply. How about a presumption of
good faith and a mutual interest in getting the *right* answer all around?