From: Rick@dot.dot   
      
   In article ,   
    Wally  wrote:   
      
   > I now consider any agreement made wrt a.f.m at an end .   
      
   I do thank for for trying.   
      
   > I will direct any posts of mine 'designed' to flame to a.f.m, but I will not   
   > consider any post a flame simply because it is directed at any particular   
   > poster even though this poster indulges in behavior that does fit the flame   
   > definition, i.e.....simply denying that which is obvious and undeniable,   
   > such as proof, explanations, or examples.   
      
   So, are you still posting here? Just examples where you're intentionally   
   being rude? As opposed to examples where your simply trying to correct   
   Snit? It is interesting as I could see it being more than a 24/7 job.   
      
   > I draw a distinction between flaming and simply denying reality, the latter   
   > IMO should be condemned and be scrutinized by a wider audience.   
   >   
   > I invite you to examine the main thread in a.f.m for clarification.   
      
   Honestly, I would prefer not to.   
   Maybe I'm unusual, but I'm that guy who, when somebody says, "Ugh, that   
   tastes like shit, try it" I just look at them strangely until they   
   realize why I wouldn't do such a thing...   
      
   --   
   RickG...   
   BTW - for those who don't like reading headers, my ISP is telus.net   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)