-> ~>  ~> Note to Hulet, Richardson, Croasmun and the rest of the "not
-> ~>  ~> invented here" bunch

~>  -> ~>  EC> Can you give some clue as to what you are trying to say?
 
~>  EC> Still nothing from you.

And still nothing.
 
~>  -> ~> You try to present yourself as a bright spark

~>  -> EC> I post comments in fidonet.  If you take them as comments from a
~>  -> EC> "bright spark," that is your subjective
reaction.  But it has
~>  -> EC> nothing do do with the question.  Looks like you once again not
~>  -> EC> knowing what YOU are saying.
 
~>  -> I didn't say that, earl. I said "You try to present yourself
 
 EC> And once again your OWN WORDS have to be explained to you!  What I
 EC> was IF you take them that way, it is because of YOUR REACTION to my
 EC> comments, not because of anything related to my intent!  I say what I
 EC> choose to say, without caring for a second about
"presentation" or your
 EC> reaction.  You made the juvenile error of confusing your reaction with
 EC> my intent.  If you take them as "bright," own up to it. 
Don't try to
 EC> play psychic.
 
~> I said "You try to present yourself as a bright spark"

Exactly my point, for a third time.  Your false statement is false,
precisely because you confuse your reaction with my purported intent.  You
would have known that if you had read what you are "responding" to.

~> I *know* what I am saying

If so, it is a well-kept secret.

~> and what I am implying. 

At best, only what you are intentionally implying.
 
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a