🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005, Imno1 wrote:

> >> > No.  It is not a lie at all.  I said that I would like to read original
> >> > source documents on this before I venture an opinion, and that is the
> >> > absolute truth.

> charges that Churchill is a fraud and a plagiarizer are coming from a number 
> of different sources. You keep asking for a smoking gun.

I keep asking (of Kenneth R. Pangborn) direct quotes of claims he says I
have made, of lies he accuses me of having offered.

> Churchill is not as 
> important as he or you, think he is,

I have no way of knowing what Churchill is thinking.  Do you?

I have not said he is important, and I have not said that I think he is
important.

Do you know what I am thinking?  How--a crystal ball?

> and not worth the effort to do the research it would take
> to fully document his bombastic claims. If the University of
> Colorado is doing what it should be doing-reviewing his claims
> to scholarship and a tenured position, the truth will come out.

It very well may.

> I predict his ass will be fired out of  the Uof CO. 

I will leave the predictions for you to make.

> If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck-the chances
 are very good it is a duck-even if people like you won't believe it. >>

I don't know if Churchill walks funny, but you are free to directly
address something I have written.  I am not responsible for what others
have imagined I have written or what others imagine I am thinking.