Replies

Well, let's see how many of your recapitulations apply to your question:

"If the City of Charleston was funding the dredging project in 1857 [as you have claimed] and had purchased the General Moultrie from New York for that purpose, why was the dredgeboat charging 66cents per cubic yard for the work, and who was paying the bill?"

Well, since I already gave you the direct quote which does not prompt your question, then let's include this one: "...But we all know you are not interested in facts, but ongoing nonsensical bloviations."

And since you were presented with Coker's quote and you state it was my claim, then this would apply: "...You seem to confuse obfuscation with rational debate. So, go ahead and enjoy yourself."

And since you still want to continue this argumentative line of questioning, then this fits: "...You always ignore facts running counter to your pantsload posts."

So, it is finally time for you to admit that your reference to H.R. 585 was invalid, and that you have no evidence to refute Coker's statement that Charleston underwrote the project.

Unless, you want to engage in more of: the "its quite possible" game...that's for children."

[mac] "If the City of Charleston was funding the dredging project in 1857 [as you have claimed] and had purchased the General Moultrie from New York for that purpose, why was the dredgeboat charging 66cents per cubic yard for the work, and who was paying the bill?"

[pea] Well, since I already gave you the direct quote which does not prompt your question...

...and since you were presented with Coker's quote and you state it was my claim..

And since you still want to continue this argumentative line of questioning...

..it is finally time for you to admit that your reference to H.R. 585 was invalid, and that you have no evidence to refute Coker's statement that Charleston underwrote the project.

It looks like you have your patented Weasel Dance down pretty good, but you still managed to avoid answering the question...Who was paying the bill?