>On Sep 25, 9:53=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <8d064db9-2f6a-4de0-9ae9-2f8270d58...@a7g2000yqo.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> Bud says...

>> >On Sep 24, 11:45=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <02f1d0b9-ea23-4952-a348-2a217bc8a...@o8g2000yqm.googlegrou=
>ps.=3D
>> >com>,
>> >> Bud says...

>> >> >On Sep 24, 3:47=3D3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> >> >> =3D3DA0 Not that I expect an answer but more because I enjoy seeing=
> Ben =3D
>> >run,
>> >> >> I shall pose this question To Mark Lane`s biggest fan...

>> >> >> =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0Mark Lane clearly lied when he stated that CE399 was=
> "undef=3D
>> >ormed".
>> >> >> Why would the truth need lies to support it?

>> >> > =3DA0As expected Ben ran, and I got my enjoyment.

>> >> I see you snipped my response... here it is again:

>> > =A0I didn`t snip anything. My response appeared before yours did, is
>> >all.

>> Actually, you replied to your own post. (as anyone can see for themselves
>> in a threaded newsreader)

>> >> ********************************************************

>> >> Forgetful, aren't you?

>> >> I told you to go read Chapter Five, then get back to me when you could
>> >> tell me what the topic was.

>> > =A0Has what to do with whether Lane lied? Since when does the truth nee=
>d
>> >lies to support it?

>> If you don't even know what the topic is, how can you accuse someone of
>> lying?

>  Because Lane called CE399 "undeformed" and it isn`t. He knew it wasn`t
>and lied about the evidence. Why does the truth need lies to support it.
>And why can`t you admit that Lane lied?

>> Truth or a lie?