PE> YOU are the one doing that.  He says exactly what I
PE> said all along, and you choose to play silly buggers.

RS> Fraid not. And you know it.

PE> Rod, he has now said THREE times exactly what I said all along.

Pigs arse he did, it wasnt even clear to him precisely what the real
situation was as far as the distribution of that area was concerned, so
even the 'problem for the network' that he DID comment on doesnt even
ARISE because there wasnt even ANY 'problem for the network' in fact.

PE> The first time you went hell-for-leather
PE> hair-splitting over the word "serious".

Nope, *HE* used that particular word in the original question *YOU*
asked him a long time ago. AND its dead fucking obvious that YOU didnt
even PC on the very clear example of a completely unambiguous breach
of 'the specs' on the date problem, EVEN THO it clearly did 'cause a
problem' for you. You in fact chose to change your code to allow for
it ANYWAY. So you have blown the feet right off your pathetically silly
claim that even something that causes a non serious problem for a single
node is something that its appropriate to PC on. In fact you are faking
away like mad on that because you clearly had enough sense not to do that.

I've binned your mindless juvenalia.
@EOT:

---