From: docmill 
Newsgroups: alt.moose.rights

guido.testosteroni{at}f127.n249.z1.fidonet.org (Guido Testosteroni) wrote in 
news:4Mmdnft1uam3wsLcRVn-rQ{at}io.com:

> Hello Docmill,
> 
> In a msg of , Nospam.4.Docmill{at}spamgourmet.Com wrote to All:
> 
>  ND> You agreed with everything I said.
> 
> I do not recall agreeing with much you said, if anything.  I guess
> this is one more instance where we'll have to "agree to disagree".
> 
>  ND> At the same time you tried to make a different case.
> 
> No, those were nuances.  Meanwhile, from my perspective, you
> apparently want to oversimplify the situation.
> 
>  ND> agreed with.  I don't have a problem with foul language, I can do it
> very
>  ND> well, the Fido has a problem and I don't.  Is there anything else I
> can do
>  ND>  for you?
> 
> No, I'm fine, thank you.  While, there's a certain temptation to drag
> this on and on and on, just as a way of contributing to message
> traffic, I suppose we should concentrate more on quality rather than
> mere quantity.  So, don't go to any trouble on my account.
> 
Naaww, you weren't any trouble, and you haven't even rung up an account.
If you feel in some contrite way that you have fullfilled your mission,
then you have by now concluded from these interactions that there has to be 
a purpose from which you can imbibe or withdraw and base your intentions 
upon others, without having a no recall or no nuance situation such as 
oversimplifying FIDO does not allow foul language.  I'm not at odds with 
that. (again)  And I'll swear to that, as USENET goes.

+++++++++++ SEND ME A LINK +++++++++++
docmill's Home Of HotLinks In The Frying SPAM


---