RT>   >or leave it.  I never wanted your whole life story, I just want to
RT> knopw who
RT>   >you are.  That's all anybody on FidoNet ever wanted from you.  But
RT> you're so
RT>   >paranoid you can't even tell us that.
RT> Christopher, you do tend to speak for others....
RT> Charles has included you and me in his accusations of a conspiracy to
RT> get him kicked off AAC2. You, in your assertion above, are just as
RT> incorrect as he is.
RT> I couldn't care less what Charles is, and to a great extent he is
RT> right, his position is irrelevant to most discussions.  Its when he
RT> makes what some perceive as extraordinary claims, particularly in his
RT> _interpretations_ of certain laws, his adamant stance on his opinions,
RT> and the insulting manner that he confronts those that disagree with him
RT> that we begin to require substantiation.  Since most of us are NOT
RT> actively involved in law enforcement and have no basis for forming a
RT> conclusion, his position in the LE community would go a long way in
RT> establishing that credibility.
True
RT> Please let me speak for myself in the "Charles" debate.
OK.  Sorry, I tend to stand up for those who have had my back in the back.  
Sorry, won't happen again.
Peace.
--- CNet/3
---------------