However, on your point #3, Mia was doing more than just stating a so-called "plausible theory" (which I provided a counterargument to), she was using a reference for that theory her own previous vanity. In other words, since she was using herself as a citation, she was endorsing the theory, not just stating it.
But that's a nitpick.
Your characterizations of the deleted posts are pretty much correct. The third was mine, deleted on my request after I was asked to do so by Mia. I made the deletion request as a gesture of goodwill -- however, I saw no legitimate reason that the original posts of Mia should have been pulled. If she wanted to get her facts straight, she should have done so prior to posting or else post a correction after the fact. I have never, nor will I ever, ask a post to be pulled because I made an error.
Thank you for confirming the chain of events.
Her only error was that she misread your post which made the entire exchange nonsensical. Mia felt that the deregulation/S&L issue was complicated enough. Leaving in that confused exchange would only have made it more so. She asked to have them removed in the interest of clarity, not ego.
Also, she wasn’t using her prior posts as ‘citations.’ She was simply putting them out there for us so she would not have to explain her thinking from the beginning. And her position was clearly that it was a THEORY. The title of her prior post tells us as much. (FRED’S GREATEST ROLE? an alternative THEORY of Senator Thompson’s not-yet candidacy)
Thanks again, kevcrom. And thanks for the waiver. ;^)