PE> I'm sure too. I have had some blues with the FTS
PE> chair. They were about inadequate documentation.

RS> And a few other tiny matters like one Paul Edwards proclaiming that he
RS> would be PCing on what he considers to be stuff thats out of spec and being
RS> told that if he didnt watch out he might get flushed if he tried that.

PE> Rod, the other stuff I have already explained to you,

Pigs arse you did, just faked away like mad, flaunting the fact that
you havent got a fucking clue what the real world is like with rather
badly written specs which have lots optional where things have changed
massively over time. Not that it actually matters a damn, no one would
ever be silly enough to let YOU rule on what is and is not out of spec.

PE> As for this new bit about PCing, pray tell where you got
PE> this information from, because it's certainly news to me.

Sure it is Paul. I got the information from YOU you pathetic faker.

PE> In the meantime, have a quote of what the FTSC Chair REALLY
PE> said about PCing.  He was telling ME that I SHOULD be PCing.

In this particularly example, yes. Pity its not the ONLY example
where some dork called Paul Edwards was making a complete fool of
himself screaming about PCing on what he claimed was out of spec.
AND you are being flagrantly dishonest even on this one too. Again.

PE> Ä NET_DEV (3:711/934.9) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ NET_DEV
PE>  Msg  : 76 of 1632 - 69 + 82         Rcv
PE>  From : david nugent                 3:632/348       Sat 23 Apr 94 06:28
PE>  To   : Paul Edwards                                 Tue 26 Apr 94 07:51
PE>  Subj : Date field
PE> ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

dn> Whether it is or is not valid depends upon
dn> the type of date ('SEAdog' or 'Fido').

> It's Fido (nominally).  The string is " 4 Apr 94  11:49:16".
> It's the right length, it's just that it has a leading space
> instead of a "0".  The routine I am using checks practically
> EVERYTHING.

PE> Your routine appears to be correct. '0' is required by the
PE> standard for Fido format dates. (my software also flags this,
PE> but interprets the date nevertheless - a little more needs
PE> to be wrong before getting out the chainsaw... :-)).

>> Do I go to you for a definite interpretation of the standard or what?

dn> You approach your NC. When it escalates (because it is a serious problem)
                                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

And THIS is where you are being deliberately, flagrantly dishonest.
He is clearly talking about where its 'a serious problem'. Your
mindless raving about what you consider to be 'out of spec' on some
completely trivial detail, like for example a point having a 3D address
in an otherwise perfectly valid origin line DOES NOT QUALIFY and if you
were stupid enough to be trying to PC on something as trivial as that,
you would get flushed from Fido. Its that simple.

EVERYONE, including the FTS chair, has noticed that you are so
mindlessly anal about what you consider to be 'the specs' that
if you dont watch out, one day there will be a gigantic WHOOMPF
and everything in the room will disappear up your arse.
@EOT:

---