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

RS> Pigs arse you did, just faked away like mad, flaunting the fact that

No, but I realise that you will never understand it now, just like
a brick in fact.

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

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

Like I say, quote the message LIAR, because I said no such thing.
I don't make up stories like you have just demonstrated you do.
BTW, choose the echo and I can send you the complete messagebase.

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.

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

Nope, you're completely out of your tree.  Your most desperate
attempt was to make up some crap about what I said (BTW, you might
like to let me know exactly what it is that I said, it will be good
for a laugh, and then I'll watch you fake away "oh, you said that
too cryptically" or somesuch rubbish).  Your second-most desperate
attempt is to claim that the below message, where I asked a direct
question, and got a direct answer, means "don't send in a PC" when
it says "send in a PC".  Desperate faking, Rod.  I know you don't
like to be cornered, but there are more graceful exits than that,
Rod.  E.g. you could just admit that you made a mistake, and leave
your credibility no less than it was before.

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)
RS>                                                              
RS>                                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

RS> And THIS is where you are being deliberately, flagrantly dishonest.

You are as bad as Bob in this deliberate lying, Rod.  It is laughable
that you even attempt to paint it as being me that is lying.

RS> He is clearly talking about where its 'a serious problem'. Your

No, he said "YOU APPROACH YOUR NC".  Then he says "*BECAUSE* IT IS
A SERIOUS PROBLEM", not "*WHERE*".  And EVEN IF it did say
"WHERE",
BIG FUCKING WHOOP, that simply means that non-serious problems don't
get escalated.  BIG FUCKING WHOOP.

RS> mindless raving about what you consider to be 'out of spec' on some
RS> completely trivial detail, like for example a point having a 3D address
RS> in an otherwise perfectly valid origin line DOES NOT QUALIFY and if you
RS> were stupid enough to be trying to PC on something as trivial as that,
RS> you would get flushed from Fido. Its that simple.

Rod, only your mind is that simple.  You have no idea what an NC will
rule.  I've seen the most bizaare rulings ever from *C's, where 
Policy 4 clearly states one thing, and they rule the complete opposite.
No Rod, your "Bill Grimsley Guarantee" is worth all the bullshit it is
written on.

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

Sure Rod, try covering up your deliberate lying (using "facts" that
you claim to have been provided by me personally, now there's a 
lark).  BFN.  Paul.
@EOT:

---