~> ~>>  If you want to play some silly ass game with rules you never
~> ~>>  post, go ahead.
 
~>  EC> Your lies are getting more and more delusional.  On the day
~>  EC> I made the rule I posted it to you and to Ross C, the two
~>  EC> moderators affected by the rule. Ross liked the rule, and
~>  EC> has followed it.
 
~>  When was the last time you posted the rules?

Notice that Klahn completely ignores the point.  The rule in question was
posted to him in September, was posted to him again in December, and was
called to his attention a number of other times in the last four months. 
Klahn can plead ignorance on a lot of things, but not this.

~>  Which makes you the liar.

Notice the hypocrisy.  Bob thinks that no one should say that, and he even
made it a rule in his echo to forbid anyone from saying such a thing.  But
he just cannot follow his own rule.  In his mind, he was FORCED to say it!

~>  No, he has not. Ross C banned flames, so your pretend rule is
~>  moot.

Notice the childish rationalization of "he did it, so I can do it."

Notice the timing: he doesn't whine about Ross until after he is booted.

Notice finally that he is wrong.  CROSSFIRE does not ban flames, and Klahn
knows that based on the various insults he has launched in that echo
against Mimi and others in the last four months without getting moderated.
 It does say that "This echo is not a platform for the sole purpose to cast
insults onto another participant."  Ross has not violated that in this echo.

~>  If Helm
~>  had ever shown up at my door I would have felt obligated to
~>  punch him out no matter what.

Notice the belated attempt to act macho when it is safe to do so.  Pretty
pathetic.

~> ~>>  Ban me and I'll ban you from my echo for echo sabatoge

~>  EC> You aren't banned.  You got two weeks for the same
~>  EC> violation that you gave Sauer two weeks for.  However, now
~>  EC> that you compound the offense by adding a direct, quid pro
~>  EC> quo threat in an attempt to get me to let you break the
~>  EC> rules of the echo, the two weeks are now doubled to four
~>  EC> weeks.
 
~>  It's not a threat, and it has nothing to do with the rules of
~>  your echo.

Notice that he pretends not to know what "threat" means, after making a
textbook example of "if you do X I'll do Y, and if you don't do X I won't
do Y."  He doesn't want the rule enforced against him, so he threatens me
to try to force me not to enforce it.  Klahn is easily pushed around, so he
assumes others can be pushed around as well.

~>  Until you drop your attempt at sabatoging my echo, and the
~>  extortion that goes with it, you are banned.

Anyone who understands "extortion" is laughing out loud over the unintended
irony of THAT Klahnism!

~>  Oh, and I do seem to recall you told me, way back when I first
~>  learned you were the echo moderator, that threats of legal
~>  action are against echo rules. So, enforce your rules against
~>  Stan the sue-er.

Another belated complaint!  And a misguided one, since Stan mentioned what
he was doing rather than making any coercive quid pro quo threat to do or
not do something.

~>  And do try to stop the attacks on me while I am not in the echo.

You have read-access to the echo.  And you have ample opportunity to
respond outside the echo.
 
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a