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

PE> The main reason I chose to not PC was because I realised I was
PE> allowed to just bin the entire message if it was out of spec.

More porkies, you said to Bob that you changed your code
to allow for it. Either THAT story or THIS one is a porkie.

In FACT you choose to wave around the threat of a PC to
try to get people to do what you think they should do,
even when, like with LocUser, it aint even PCable at all.

AND as Nugent says, thats positively counter productive and is MUCH more
likely to see them tell you to go and fuck yourself whereas they may well be
quite happy to fix a wart if you have the sense to politely point out what
the problem is rather than belt them in the face with a dead fish first off.

You appear to realise you do have a major problem with this inter
personal stuff, this is an absolutely classic example of it in fact.
@EOT:

---