I guess somehow you found time in your busy schedule to respond.



**By giving me nicknames. This is not a maligning?

> No that's my humor. I thought you saw it as humorous.

Now it's maligning you. LOL!**



Regardless of how you spin it, it is maligning.



** OK, I think I hit on all of the snippets. A few were by other posters.**



None of what you have quoted prove that I'm lying, correct?



**> That may be the opinion of others that I respect-lol, and whether I share that opinion or not, an opinion is never proof of lying, it's just an opinion. Right?**



Exactly. A point I've been trying to make for a while. Thanks for conceding.



**I guess you weren't sleeping when you wrote it. You are correct that I have led a sheltered life. I like it that way.

>You and I have a much different threshold in defining a profanity laced email. I didn't even know what you were talking about. One word that ryhmes with ick does not make an email "laced". That is funny.**



It is funny. Funny that you denied it.



**> Promise? Are you sure it's not maligning you if I choose not to believe your story?**



Regardless of how you see it, you are maligning me. Would I not be maligning you if I didn't believe your story and then continued to rehash it?



**Ok. Then not outed. The problem lies where?

>A sullied reputation, right? **



The reputation is only sullied by being proven, correct? Anything else is conjecture. Would your reputation be sullied if I didn't believe your story? Why is it one way for others, but not for you?



Is Dan's reputation becoming more unsullied now that someone has posted a picture of a wild speckled Hueco which was not claimed to be caught by Dan?

[ Show Entire Thread ]