On Dec 5, 2007 2:52 PM, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 05/12/2007, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
And in this case there was no "secret
body" that "determine[d] cases",
so "authority" was irrelevant. Odd how your comments were based on the
false presumption that has been repudiated so often in the past few
days. It's clear that my last comment to you about having a perfect
record of assuming bad faith still applies.
If you are going to keep trying to play the plausible denyability card
it is to be expected that people are going to start opting for
collective responsibility.
Ah, geni, is that the "collective responsibility" promoted by some
unnamed religious groups who have an unnamed "moral code" that counts
failure to read e-mails as a "moral failure" and who follow Asimov's
First Law of Robotics?