LonelyAngel Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Martin Stower Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> > We might almost gain the impression that you share
> > to a remarkable degree Scott’s chagrin that on a
> > serious matter,

Oops. We seem to have lost the conclusion of the paragraph again. Let’s fix that:

> > We might almost gain the impression that you share
> > to a remarkable degree Scott’s chagrin that on a
> > serious matter, Bauval would rather talk to me
> > than him.

It’s almost as if you have such an aversion to the truth it tells that you can not bear to look at it (or would prefer others not to).

> Firstly, I'm Sean. Not Scott. Sean.
> LonelyAngel/JohnSmith/Sean. Not Scott. You need
> to get that through your thick tinfoil helmet.

Oh? You’re John Smith and you’re Sean Hunter? In what context are you John Smith and in what context are you Sean Hunter?—and in what context are you (maybe) someone else?

What reason have you given us to believe you? What track record do you have, other than as a Mr Mini-Me to Scott Creighton?

Otherwise, get a child to help you with your reading.

> Secondly, I don't share Scott's "chagrin" at
> anything. I simply remember - with a mixture of
> amusement, bemusement and disgust - how Scott's
> work had made bedfellows of you and Mr Bauval that
> last time on here, setting aside your previous
> clashings in a "the enemy of my enemy is my
> friend" deal that had Mr Bauval playing you like a
> fiddle to promote his own agenda.
>
> You will no doubt prove useful to him again.

Thanks for making my point.



M.