Leo wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 04:42:31 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:


Leo wrote:


How so? I have neither defended nor attacked Len. I simply refuse to
join you in your obcessive crusade against him.

The word is "obsessive". Jim's treatment of Len isn't.


Thanks, Dave. You are correct - my spelling of the word "obsessive"
was incorrect. Appreciate the help!

You're welcome. I spotted it the first time you used it but didn't
comment on it then.


With regard to your second point, though - 'obsessive' wouldn't refer
to Jim's 'treatment' of Len - it is in the relentless pursuit of
proving the individual wrong that we would find the true definition of
the word.

I don't see evidence of any *pursuit* of Len by Jim, much less
"relentless pursuit".

Dave K8MN

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 16:43:40 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 04:42:31 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:


Leo wrote:


How so? I have neither defended nor attacked Len. I simply refuse to
join you in your obcessive crusade against him.

The word is "obsessive". Jim's treatment of Len isn't.


Thanks, Dave. You are correct - my spelling of the word "obsessive"
was incorrect. Appreciate the help!

You're welcome. I spotted it the first time you used it but didn't
comment on it then.

Yeah, I should have caught it myself - didn't seem right when I wrote
it, but too lazy to look it up, I guess!



With regard to your second point, though - 'obsessive' wouldn't refer
to Jim's 'treatment' of Len - it is in the relentless pursuit of
proving the individual wrong that we would find the true definition of
the word.

I don't see evidence of any *pursuit* of Len by Jim, much less
"relentless pursuit".


Not sure I can agree with you on that point, Dave. It's been going on
for years on a pretty frequent basis - see my reply to Jim elsewhere
in this thread....

Dave K8MN

73, Leo