In message 
          Chris  Tolley <cj.tolley@bogus.co.uk (ukonline really)> wrote:

> David Hansen wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 15:55:59 +0000 someone who may be Chris  Tolley
> > <cj.tolley@bogus.co.uk (ukonline really)> wrote this:-
> > 
> >>So, let's recapitulate.
> > 
> > I note that you are not now defending your assertion which I
> > responded to as the thread drifted.
> 
> I'm pleased you noted that. It was entirely intentional.
> 
> As you (repeatedly) avoid responding to the points I make, it's not
> really appropriate for you to expect me to respond to points arising
> from your attempts to divert the discussion elsewhere a couple of posts
> later. 
> 
> I believe a response would only reward your avoidance, and I don't
> particularly want to encourage it. I'll happily discuss things with you,
> if you are prepared to enter into and remain in the discussion on equal
> terms. 
> 
> Your move.

30:40 new balls please...

-- 
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>