PE> Sorry, how have I had my nose rubbed in V34?

RS> Raving on along the lines that any CONNECT/NONE absolutely
RS> must be because one or other of the modems is breaking
RS> 'the specs'. The real world is more complicated than that.

Pity that YOU said exactly the same thing yourself, "That's the
whole point of the ITU spec".  You've said that on a number of
occasions, along with "Poor old Bob".  Poor old Rod.

RS> Doubt it will ever actually dawn on you that its just a tad
RS> unlikely that you alone in the entire fucking world are right.

PE> That's what happened to the guy that said the earth revolved around the sun

RS> Yes, but you aint one of those.

Fraid so.  And you're the exact equivalent of the people who were
telling him he was barmy.

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.

PE> Like I say, quote the message LIAR, because I said no such thing.

RS> Fake more convincingly, you know you said it, you raved on about how
RS> messages leaving your system had to be absolutely immaculate because
RS> you had been told that your lunatic performance on claiming that you
RS>         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
RS> would PC any message what didnt meet your standards of immaculate
RS> perfection meant that they would be shafting you if yours werent. You
RS>                           
RS> were either lying then, or you are lying now. You cant have it both ways.

PE> Replace that with "becaused I had threatened PC's" and
"might".

RS> Thats just hair splitting. 

It's what my message actually said.

RS> My fundamental point was that the FTS chair
RS> had said to you that your were being completely unreasonable threatening

Yes, THAT is your point, and it is a COMPLETE LIE.  I told you NO
SUCH THING, you MADE IT UP all by yourself.  What you have said 
above, about what *I* said, is true, I said that I was worried about
it.  But it certainly wasn't because of anything the FTSC Chair said.
In actual fact, I had a message from the FTSC Chair telling me to do
exactly that.

RS> to PC people on what you claimed was 'out of spec' when that was not
RS> causing fido any problems and that if you didnt watch out you could very
RS> well get comprehensively shafted yourself for doing that if you ever were
RS> silly enough to start PCing people on trivia. You appeared to be able
RS> to grasp that he had a point and that you could well get shafted trying it.

He said no such thing.  FLAGRANT LIAR.  Quote a message, FLAGRANT
LIAR.  That should be good for a laugh.

PE> Yes, I certainly remember saying that.  Now what, pray
PE> tell, does this have to do with the FTSC Chair?  LIAR!

RS> No use going into hysterics again, you are just faking away the
RS> fact that what I said was right, that you were told that if you didnt
RS> behave yourself PCing trivia, you may well end up getting shafted.

He said no such thing, LIAR.  It was HIM that told me to PC.  I didn't
even know that was what we were meant to do until he told me.  I thought
it was his job to chase up things like that, and he said no, it is the
NCs job, via a PC.  PATHETIC LIAR.

RS> You even raved on about the fact that origin lines
RS> leaving your system couldnt possibly have 3D addresses
RS> if they were from your points because of that.

PE> Yep, I said that.  That's the way I interpret the specs,

RS> Yes, it was an absolutely classic example of where
RS> only Paul Edwards interprets 'the specs' that anally.

Whatever you think, that's the way I interpret them.  That when it
calls for an "address" it means your address.  Not someone else's
address.

PE> which means that may be the NC interprets the specs,

RS> Pigs arse it may. 

Care to bet your life on that?  Every single NC in the world has
the exact opposite opinion to me, do they?  Not a shadow of a
chance that one of them might agree?

RS> AND you are just faking away like mad even more. You
RS> know as well as I do that since the use of 3D in an otherwise immaculate
RS> origin line cant be claimed to be causing the network serious problems.

I didn't say that, I said it was out of spec, and thus PCable.

RS> Yes, there is certainly provision for recourse when the failure to
RS> meet 'the specs' causes the network serious problems. 

Faking like mad, Rod.  The thing that makes it PCable is that it is
out-of-spec.  There is no way for a node to determine what "serious
network problems" is, which is just as well, because that's not what
you need to determine.

RS> More lies, you have just said you managed to cream your AVT message base.

PE> Ok, if you choose that one, yes I can't send it.

RS> So there aint any point in this sort of posturing is
RS> there, because it was almost certainly where it appeared.

Far more likely to be LOCSYSOP.  BFN.  Paul.
@EOT:

---