CH>RT>Nope.  No cigar Charles.  This here is a PUBLIC echo.  I've not
  >  >addressed you nor your affairs other than in this medium.  The issues
  >  >concerning your credibility are a direct result of your postings,
  >  >REGARDLESS of your paranoid fantasies to the contrary.
  >No, Ron; you don't even come close to getting the brass ring.  The
  >issue of whether or not I had to prove my credentials was decided by
  >the moderator, according to the rules, a long time ago.
Good grief Charlie.... can't you make a point and stick to it???
Ok.. from the beginning... well not actually the beginning but the
beginning of THIS point.
       1.  You accused me of trying to invade your "privacy".
       2.  I rebutted your assertion by stating that this is a "public"
           echo and I'd not made any attempt to _invade_ anything other
           than your assertions HERE.
       3.  You go back to the point before the point that was the point
           before this'un... or something like that...
Get the point?
  > Yet you
  >persist, with others to repeatedly harrass me by trying to belittle me
  >and raise questions about my credentials for your own little purposes
  >and agenda.
I've stated very clearly why I feel that you should substantiate your
postings.  I'm in no way trying to belittle you.  I have no
ulterior purposes nor agenda, little or otherwise.   Your paranoia
abounds!
CH>  >3.  You make assumptions that have no foundation.
CH>RT>My _assumptions_ have plenty of foundation.  But I'll have to admit 
hat
  >  >my allegations (that you are an impostor) have no _substantiation_ 
ince
  >  >one can't possibly prove a negative.  Half a point for you.
CH>Your own statement(s) condemn you.
Your statement is meaningless.
CH>  >4.  You speak for Leos when YOU are not a Leo or their designated
  >  >agent.
CH>RT>This'un you gotta back up.  I, like yourself, claim to have HAD law
  >  >enforcement experience some 25 to 30 years ago.  Otherwise I, unlike
  >  >yourself, have never spoken as a LEO nor for one.  Please show us when 

  >  >did or apologize.
CH>Considering the nature of the echo, the only one(s) who have any real
  >gripe (if any could exists) would be the actual, current Leos who are
  >the heart of the conference.  You are not one of them.
Hey Charlie... you make an assertion...actually an _accusation_. Why
can't you defend it without getting off on a tangent?  You accused me of
speaking for and/or as a LEO.  When did I do that?  Answer the question
directly without hem-hawing around the bush about it.
CH>RT>Agitator?  Hmmmmmmm..... well I guess I gotta admit that I do enjoy
  >  >debunking would-be authorities when they are in fact full of it.  As 
r
  >Funny that no real LEOS have made any serious challenges to any of my
  >posts other than to discuss their OPINION and my OPINION.
Very few "real" LEO's left on this conference.  They all left because of
the petty bickering that was generated by your posting style.  As far as
you are concerned, there could be no "serious" challenges to any of your
posts, cuz you present yourself as infallible.
CH>RT>Ah... pardon me while I slip into this phone booth and change into my
  >  >cape and leotards.
  >I'll bet they are pink.
Fantasizing again Charlie?
---
 þ QMPro 1.02 42-7029 þ "Daddy, what does FORMATTING DRIVE C mean?"
---------------