>>>> That was not a ruling. That was advice to Richardson.

>>> It was your official interpretation of the rule, and it
>>> makes the rule moot.

>> No, it was not. There is no rule against anyone reading the
>> echo, that was advice to stop doing so.

 EC> As usual, you pretend to miss the point.  You ruled that if

 As usual, you make something up to pretend that you have an
 actual point.

 EC> anyone feels they are being provoked in your echo they
 EC> should react by not reading the provocation.  That makes

 Now you falsify the actual statement. There was no such
 *RULING*, it was a *SUGGESTION*. Your spin is false.

 EC> Peter's provocation rule moot, just as it makes the rule

 Believe it or not, you can ignore any echo you want and it has
 no effect on any echo rule. Peter's rule did not require anyone
 to read the echo.

 EC> about personal attacks moot.  This was already explained
 EC> more thoroughly. You just ignored it.  Nothing new.

 You made false claims and then pretend I ignored something that
 never happened. Nothing new.



BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
 * Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)