RS> Fraid you did, the FIRST time you said
RS> anything to the NODE, you did just that.

PE> That's hair-splitting.

RS> Nope, you in fact did PRECISELY what Nugent was saying
RS> is positively counterproductive. He's right too.

It's crap.  It was the THIRD message.

RS> Faking. In your FIRST message to him you did PRECISELY what
RS> Nugent was saying was positively counterproductive. Obviously
RS> the possibility of PCing a point doesnt arise, you cant.

Crap, it was the THIRD message.

PE> Read the specs yourself.

RS> No thanks, it aint as rigidly specified as you claim, just like the
RS> presence of 0x01s aint anything like as rigidly specified as you claim.

PE> Fraid so.

RS> This sort of mindless bullshit convinces absolutely no one at all,
RS> PARTICULARLY when EVERYONE is telling you that you have fucked that
RS> up and the FTS says nothing remotely like as absolute as you claim.

It is, read the specs yourself.

RS> And even when the format *IS* rigidly specified like with the date,
RS> just because that caused YOU as one person a problem that DOES NOT mean
RS> that you get to demand that everyone in the entire net cleans up their act
RS> forthwith with you furiously PCing every breach of 'the specs' you can find

PE> Fraid so.

RS> More mindless bullshit that convinces absolutely no one. And when you
RS> have to resort to this, its dead bloody obvious that you cant think
RS> of anything useful to say about the stuff that blows your silly claim
RS> totally out of the water, so you go for the mindless bullshit instead.

Read the specs for yourself, Rod.  No need for debate, just read them.

PE> It's CERTAINLY what the ZC said in black and white.

RS> Pity you so utterly misrepresent what he ACTUALLY said.

YOU are the one doing that.  He says exactly what I said all along, and you
choose to play silly buggers.  BFN.  Paul. 
@EOT:

---