You missed part of my post. Here's the comment to which I responded:
>>... to see if you can prompt someone (like me) to make a strong statement that can allow someone else (and I think we both know who it might be) to make some outlandish Grover-style claim?
What do you mean by "and I think we both know who it might be?" At whom are you casting aspersions, and what is the motive for implying that I might share your accusatory thought?
No obligation to answer, but then you should let it go and if you can't, at least stop trying to draw me into the sort of drama in which I have no interest.
Re limiting comments to 3/d: of benefit if there are saboteurs about. Haven't seen any for a while. It represents work for Michel so if there aren't false posters causing a ruckus, no real indication for him to do it AFAICS.
"... They ne'er cared for us
yet: suffer us to famish, and their store-houses
crammed with grain; make edicts for usury, to
support usurers; repeal daily any wholesome act
established against the rich, and provide more
piercing statutes daily, to chain up and restrain
the poor. If the wars eat us not up, they will; and
there's all the love they bear us."
-- Shakespeare: Coriolanus, Act 1, scene 1
