[at-l] Baker? Katahdin?

[Snodrog5 at aol.com (Snodrog5@xxxxxxx)]

In a message dated 12/16/03 7:12:36 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
jbullar1@twcny.rr.com writes:

> When you engage in slamming the AMC when there were no other buyers who 
> would have been preferable, you are "engaging in pointless 
> hypotheticals". 

Nonsense, Jim. AGAIN, Jim: it doesn't matter who buys it - it matters what 
they do with it. It's you who are begging for a pointless exercise in 
hypothticals. OK, your begging has worn me down, here you go: 
If the buyer had been you, and you planned to burn it down, and I "slammed" 
you, you're saying *I* would be wrong to do so? 
Following your "logic," if you were the buyer and your plan was preservation 
I wouldn't be allowed to support you if I didn't name a buyer who was less 
preferable? Jim, I'm certain your confusion is genuine, but your inability to 
comprehend such a simple point is becoming tiresome.
TJ