PE> You will see that all the hair-splitting over "serious" in
PE> "serious network problems" has now been said as
"network problems"

RS> Now try explaining why the date 'out of spec' persists. Have fun.

PE> You try explaining how that fact remotely helps your case. Have fun.

RS> Some loon called Paul Edwards was proclaiming that if it causes
RS> a problem for him alone, he can demand that those messages be
RS> fixed, particularly in this case where 'the spec' DOES rigidly
RS> specify that field and those messages clearly are 'out of spec'.

PE> That is correct.

PE> I see you have realised yourself that your quote above has absolutely
PE> nothing to do with the situation, and have chosen to fake away.

Just goes to show how utterly fucked what one
Paul Edwards 'sees' is then doesnt it ?  Again.

RS> Now try explaining why you aint furiously PCing every example
RS> of a message you see in the total echomail volume that you claim
RS> doesnt adhere to your bizarre interpretation of 'the specs'.

PE> The reason I don't is because I don't want to raise a PC when
PE> I have no idea what side of the bed the *C got out of that morning.

So your claim that you can in fact bludgeon others into
compliance with your bizarre ideas on 'the specs' is in
fact tripe. AND you cant even PC the bulldog on this latest
one anyway, its got nothing whatever to do with Fido at all.

RS> Because you know damned well that if you tried
RS> that you would get the bums rush in not time Paul.

PE> No, I don't know that at all.

OK, you may very well be so far off with
the fairys that you dont. Its true anyway.

PE> I do know that this is EXACTLY what DN told me to do,

Like HELL he did, THAT message SPECIFICALLY referred to 'serious
problems for the network' and you havent actually established that
THAT particular problem actually does do that, and when its been like
that for YEARS its extremely fanciful to claim that it actually does.

PE> but I'm still not willing to get it.  I'd
PE> rather just delete all out-of-spec messages etc.

More dishonesty, you ACTUALLY said to Bob that you changed
your code to allow it to handle those message gracefully.

PE> Now try explaining how your quote
PE> (still above) says anything to the contrary.

RS> It doesnt have to be that particular quote dorko, we have this
RS> funky concept of a thread that continues over a number messages
RS> without everything being requoted in its entirety in perpetuity.

PE> Poor old Rod.  Makes a direct "have fun" statement, and then fakes
PE> away like mad. The last time I remember this situation was when my
PE> dad was telling me that reading in poor light was bad for my eyes.
PE> I said that's an old wive's tale, how does he know?  He said he spoke
PE> to doctors.  He almost had me there, and then I said "what did the
PE> doctor say, anyway". "Anyone over 40 that doesn't wear glasses is
PE> kidding themselves".  Bit of a pause.  "So what does that have to
PE> do with reading in poor light?" "Well I admit there's not a direct
PE> correlation". He obviously came from the Rod Speed school of
gross faking.

Poor old Paul, cant do better than this mindless juvenile bullshit.

Pity that when you resort to this mindless juvenile bullshit,
its so fucking obvious that you are halfway thru to china.

RS> Doesnt actually matter a damn if you admit it or not, you know damned
RS> well that you DONT furiously PC even that very clear cut breach of 'the
RS> specs' so its dead bloody obvious that your silly claim about 'problem
RS> for the network' is complete and UTTER tripe, and that clearly no one
RS> else in the network is doing that either, coz its persisted for YEARS.

PE> Sorry Rod, we have a direct quote from DN that one single
PE> node having problems constitutes "problem for the network".

Soorree, this aint 'the network' its ACTUALLY just the use of fido technology.

PE> It's not even a nice attempt at faking. Try harder, boy.

Try faking away the fact that it aint 'the network'. Have fun.
@EOT:

---