For your information, I have been out of town and posted the LAST response on the fly.Hmmm. You had plenty of time to make 25 or so posts on February 7th alone. That's a full day (+) after 116. Whether you were out of town or not, it seems you know you got your butt kicked and ran and hid, hoping this whole thing would blow over with no one noticing.
As to a response to #116. I really don't think it deserves one.
Perhaps you are right. Maybe there isn't anything else to say when you have already embarassed yourself.
I find your attitude contentious and condescending.
You insult me and then have the nerve to call me condescending? That's not only hypocritical, it's, well, ____ (yes, the dreaded S word).
I have no need of justifying myself to you.
That's good because you can't justify yourself, at least not on this thread.
Ok, Ive been following this, and I dont think this was a murder, simply because I think that if the Enron Execs wanted to whack this guy, they had enough $$$ to make sure his body disappeared. However, there are enough inconsistancies in the evidence that I CERTAINLY think you are out of line calling anyone stupid for pointing out those inconsistances and suggesting that there may be some foul play. It certainly comes at a good time to provide a scapegoat, but it just seems like a whole lot of things would have to fall in place for the conspiricy theory to come through. But there is certainly no harm in discussing the possibility, and there is definately no profit in personally attacking people who disagree. Can We all just Get along?