DN> and don't give them cause to become defensive; e.g. threats right at
DN> the start get nowhere very fast and usually escalate for no good cause.

PE> No threats at the start.

RS> Pigs arse there werent, you said right
RS> from the start that it was a PCable offense.

PE> Crap.

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.

PE> It's crap.  It was the THIRD message.

Nope, it was the FIRST message you wrote to the only
person you could conceivably PC, the NODE, in fact doing
PRECISELY what Nugent said was positively counterproductive.

AND its distinctly arguable if you actually COULD PC on
that anyway since that message traffic has nothing whatever
to do with Fido and is in fact just using Fido technology.

The MOST you could actually threaten is that if
that problem wasnt fixed, you would cut his feed.

PE> He likely saw the first message, certainly saw the
PE> second message, he knew they were about stuff from
PE> his node, the THIRD message was where I mentioned PC.

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.

PE> Crap, it was the THIRD message.

Not to the node. More dishonesty.

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.

PE> It is, read the specs yourself.

Crap, and as the bulldog says, this is a pathetically juvenile approach,
just claiming that its in 'the specs' somewhere without bothering to point
to the bit you claim is actually being breached. You do it for a damned good
reason Paul, you know as well as I do that if you tried to actually list the
particular bit that says that, its nothing like as absolute as you claim.

RS> And even when the format *IS* rigidly specified like with the date, just
RS> because that caused YOU as one person a problem that DOES NOT mean that
RS> 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.

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

I've read them thanks, and have said repeatedly that EVEN IF there is
a VERY CLEAR BREACH like with the date, YOU STILL DONT MINDLESSLY PC
every single instance of a CLEAR BREACH YOU SEE because you know damned
well that if you did you would be flushed out of fido in no time flat.

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

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

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

Fraid not. And you know it.
@EOT:

---