Men, and mice.

I say:

".. Edwards comes at
the right time. And he seems to have mellowed over the years, a sign that he
might have learned from the past. He still has several prime career years
ahead of him, and remains someone to be watched very closely. We all seem
to. And with that alone we pay him the respect he's owed. .."

I'm quoted as saying:

Uhm, isn't something missing?

With that alone, the pathological paranoia of a regular poster to this
newgroup, and his dishonest style, are sufficiently exposed. The highly
selective quoting is a tool as dishonest as a downright lie. Somone as
concerned about US legal standards ought to know misrepresentation is held
in higher contempt in law than claiming ignorance or a flawed memory.

What is not quoted, or ignored, shows that despite rumors to the contrary I
*take* time to read and write about Edwards. Far more than about other
riders. But my personal, leisurely opinion on how he may *could* do *even*
better -and speculation is the fun part of what we engage in- is taken as
disrespect. Fact is, if I didn't think Edwards was a top rider, I would not
have read up on him for a while, much less would I take the time to offer my
opinion on him as often as I have. Unless riders are utter elite members, I
do not mention them in my messages. Edwards is part of the elite, period. I
have *NEVER* claimed the contrary, despite the transparently dishonest
agenda of the quoting individual.

Our collective discussions ultimately show the best who matters the most,
and who doesn't. That was my point (in the unquoted bits). Edrwards matter -
a lot.

....pablo