->  M>> It doesnt make sense to try to contrast your echo to this
->  M>> one by claiming your echo is flame free and then come into
-> 
->  BK>  It doesn't make sense to bloviate on my echo being flame free,
->  BK>  then demand that I maintain a one sided flame free debate.
-> 

-> No this echo is not for your personal advertisement for your echo

No? Debate! No flames! Wilson Poetry! Profound truths! No name cslling! You
bastards should try it! 

, in which you
-> advocate goody goody 2 shoes behavior in it...

Yes. There, one discusses my poetry in contrast with Homer, Milton and
other greats; searching for a superior, and never stoops to discussing
meter...
Oh. Yes. There are other people. THEY talk politics and the like. 

, then act like that which you
-> detest.

Eh?



-> 
->  M>> here adding into that which you try to contrast from or with.
-> 
-> [strawman deleted]

Dang. THAT sentence needed _something_ :-)

-> 
->  BK>  I maintain a civil discussion of issues in my echo.
Ah. THAT'S the problem.
 
-> Remember, you assigned the term flame to this echo.

C'mon, you think this echo is moderated so as to be flame-free?
-> 
->  M>> If you hold yourself to what you infer to be higher
->  M>> standards, then act like it.
-> 
->  BK>  Imply, not infer. And I deal with the rules of the echo. If you
->  BK>  want to chastise me for language, you set the example first.
-> 
-> You are making the same failed assumptions Ceppa did..
-> 
-> I would have said nothing had you not advertised your echo in here.
-> 
You started it. Remember 'anal'? You've compared echoes several time in
here. Cripes! Different strokes for different folks.

You seem to be complaining about differences.

Viva la difference!  
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5