Hello Dick.
 R>> I did, however, suggest that the routed netmail you
 R>> supposedly sent me a while back got lost.  Please be careful in
 R>> paraphrasing me, I don't care for having my words taken out of
 R>> context
 RM> I recall, now, finding it very interesting that it only happened to
 RM> those netmails (and the email I sent as well).
I received, and responded to, your internet email.  Have you forgotten this 
as well?  If you consider it interesting that routed netmail might get lost, 
then perhaps you haven't become used to this fact.  I expect one half of all 
routed netmail to get lost en route (that's the nature of the beast), so if I 
have anything really important to say, I make it a policy to send the netmail 
direct/crash.
 R>> You seem to have selective memory as well as a belligerent
 R>> attitude.
 RM> "Belligerent"?  This is far more hilarious, Scott.  Care to take a
 RM> vote on how "belligerent" I am?
What does voting have to do with it, Dick?
 R>> I have some information which will punch a hole in some of the
 R>> statements you are making and may make you embarassed about it.  I
 R>> was thinking of giving you this information, but I think it will
 R>> be more amusing to watch you continue to follow the path that
 R>> you're currently on
 RM> Why am I not surprised, that you would use this tactic?  ;)
Probably because you've gained some insight into my personality.
 RM> Here is my philosophy of what I am doing here:
 RM> 1) The moderator has decreed that PHIL remain in a state of anarchy.
 RM> 2) One individual has actually told the moderator to "fuck off".
 RM> From these two points I gather that if it is okay to tell the
 RM> moderator to "fuck off", then it is quite alright to hound the
 RM> moderator at will without any risk of being banned from the echo.
 RM> Furthermore, if by some freak chance the one doing the hounding gets
 RM> banned, then it stands to reason that the individual that told him to
 RM> "fuck off" gets banned as well.  ;)
Why are you stating that last implication?  I can easily conceive of banning 
you while not banning Andrew, without Universe collapsing due to a failure of 
internal consistency.
 RM> Still amused?
Actually I'm more confused than amused at this point (though, as usual, there 
is an element of amusement).  Are you telling me that you are trying to goad 
me into banning you so that I will then feel compelled to ban Andrew as well? 
 I do not seem to grok this path you have been following -- it may have to do 
with my eristic temperament and your apparent aneristic temperament.
Rev_Null
--- GoldED 2.50+
---------------