Nope. Just been back to the thread - #30, 25th July 2008, 06.53pm. You had me worried there. I'm a stickler for accuracy on these matters, part of the training. Surely you were trained to check your facts before giving evidence.
I have read the posts on that thread. I originated the thread and have been following it.
You said:
Quote:
|
the only fact seems to be 1. The email was genuine, (I'm assuming you mean the resignation email).
|
Everybody would assume, since you had been posting before and after the e-mail that you had indeed read it before you commented on it, context or otherwise. You are now admitting that you debate on threads by reading some posts, jumping a few and then posting without knowing which way the argument is going. At least that's what I think you're saying as your grammar is up the spout again and a man of my intellect can only hazard a guess at what you mean.
Bob, you read the e-mail a few days ago, why deny it?