Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> David Maynard <nospam@private.net> wrote:
>
>>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>>
>>>Now, it should be clear that in three short paragraphs in the
>>>very first article I posted in this discussion, several items
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>>>were mentioned that you have since claimed have never been
>>>discussed mentioned.
>>
>>That's your 'first article' in another thread, not this one, to
>>a different person about a different component, unless you've
>>lost sight of a fan not being a pump.
>
>
> The *discussion* didn't start with this particular thread,

This thread started with this thread and I've got some disappointing news
for you. Every 'discussion' isn't attached to your butt.

> and
> if you won't read the entire discussion you simply can't make
> pertinent comments.

When reading a thread I'm not going to search the entire newsgroup for
everything you may have posted elsewhere simply because you think wherever
you've been is 'the discussion'.

> Moreover, this particular subject line did
> *not* start with the article you claimed was the original post

Yes. it did.

> (and now you are acknowledging a *different* OP than you claimed
> before!).

False. And your inability to understand the difference between which post
"started" a thread vs which post you first "replied" to is your problem,
not mine.

>
> In the original thread there were 17 posts, by 4 authors, and
> kony and I accounted for 13 of those articles. The last post
> under that subject line was dated
>
> Date: Wed Jul 13 19:14:40 2005 -0800
>
> And then stormrider moved the discussion

"Stormrider" didn't 'move' a damn thing. He started his own thread of his
own topic regarding "a silent air cooled computer project" and wasn't even
in the one you claim began 'the discussion'.


> to a new subject line:
> (Actually, stormrider just posted it, and kony moved the discussion
> to this thread.)
>
> Subject: a silent air cooled computer project
> Message-ID: <2ZkBe.10031$aY6.3718@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink .net>
> Date: Wed Jul 13 19:27:58 2005 -0800
>
> Note the time relationship. And then a few hours later the
> article you claimed several times was the "original post":
>
> From: "Beall" <k.beallNOSPAM@mchsi.com>
> Subject: Re: a silent air cooled computer project
> Date: Thu Jul 14 02:53:41 2005 -0800

So now your ego centric, self centered, mind claims that any post in 'time
relationship' must necessarily be 'your discussion'?


> The discussion had been going on for nearly 3 days, with almost
> 20 articles,

"A" discussion had been going on.

> by the time that was posted!

By the time someone else posted a message on a different topic of their own.

I hate to burst your bubble but this happens all the time. People post
messages without taking into account that 'Master Floyd' has been talking
elsewhere.

> There have been 13
> authors since, posting a total of 46 articles under that subject
> title, and clearly you have only read those in the smallest
> splinter of the entire discussion, less than one third of the
> discussion. It is little wonder that your articles are so
> factually off base in regard to context that they don't make
> sense.

News flash: "a silent air cooled computer project" isn't a closed loop
water control R&D project.


<snip of more delusions>