And speaking of context, the message to which you refer is not mine.


Mitch wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, News <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>References in this thread are self-evident from context.
>>
>>Not to mention YOUR evidence is ... oops, none offered.

>
> My argument was that your message was nonsensical and poorly written.
> My evidence was your message. It is the most appropriate and accurate
> evidence possible.
>
>
>>And YOUR prior posting history is ... darn, none.
>>
>>Pot, kettle, etc. ???

>
> I've participated in this group for many years.
> I have used only two names.
>
>
>>Don't even bother on the top/bottom issue. You got the message.

>
> I did. I could. That's not true of many others.
>
> What I wrote to you is reasons for you to change for YOUR benefit.
> It would make it possible for YOUR messages to reach and be understood
> by other people. Any sensible person would be trying to do that, since
> posting is rather pointless without those qualities.
>
>
>
>
>>Mitch wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>, Kevin
>>>Weaver <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Yes it is.
>>>>
>>>>If I were to say that it did not suck. Then what be posted then ?
>>>>The company sucks. Can't paint it any brighter.
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, let's see:
>>>no reference to which company you mean
>>>poor grammar
>>>broken sentences
>>>poor word choice
>>>
>>>and more importantly:
>>>no evidence for the statement, which means it has no value at all.
>>>None. Readers assign a value to your statements based on either your
>>>reputation in previous writings or the evidence/arguments you present
>>>in this one.
>>>
>>>You seem to have neither one, so whatever you say is just meaningless
>>>until evidence is offered.




See More: AT&T's iPhone Store Locator has been posted.