[CALUG] repartitioning on the fly

[David Salinas]

--- James Ewing Cottrell 3rd <JECottrell3 at Comcast.NET> wrote:

> >Saying that there are clues is one thing. Saying that we *should*
> have known is another. It's a process. Say something, get feedback.
Say
> >something again, get feedback. We were missing one of those key
> >components. Joan, where are you?
> >
> My previous post listed a plausible reason for her absence. I'd bet
on that too.

Heh, that was a ""Joan where are you?" rhetorical question. The is
reference to missing information. Come on man! 

> Glutton for punishment, eh?

Huh? No, it was for you to just say what you mean instead of beating
around the bush. Yes, the point is that you were referring to five
posters as "suckers." Just say it. You're already at the top of the
anal-retentive list. Why stop now? 

Keep digging deeper. The glutton will be you.  

> Right. But what You Personally wouldn't do is what he did: assume the
least unlikely option and >post a reply based on that. That is one of
the  things I flamed him for. The other one was for his >most
un-Consultant like response.

Oh my god.  Call the police! Cat and dogs raining from the sky! Talk
about taking a small obscure post and then nitpicking. Then, going
through all this elaborate reasons why we (or he) "should" had known.
Not this again! Why did you even join this member list? Why don't you
find a new one if you don't like the moderator? Please, no one is
stopping you. I'm sure most would be glad if you where gone.