In article , wrote:

I don't think anyone can disagree with your opening statment, it's
where you go with it that's the question.


It's a follow-up "for the record", to _any_ post he makes, on that subject.
Exactly the same challenge issued to him, as he issued to Chuck.


It is done to ensure that he cannot get away with the 'big lie' approach.

Yeah, its a rehash of 'old news' to the RAH regulars. but it ensures he won't
be able to fool any 'new blood'. Not now, not ever. Safely archived
on Google, for anybody to find, who searches on his name.

Lastly, he *publicly*stated* that he _doesn't_care_ if I call him a liar and a
fraud. So he _can't_ EVER come after me for libel/slander for saying it.