XPost: sci.astro, sci.physics, sci.space.policy   
   From: fjmccall@gmail.com   
      
   jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:   
      
   >In sci.physics Fred J. McCall  wrote:   
   >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall  wrote:   
   >>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall  wrote:   
   >>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Doc O'Leary  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>> For your reference, records indicate that   
   >>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Doc O'Leary    
   wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>> >   
   >>>>>>>>>>> > I really can?t be bothered to figure out the messes you get   
   yourself   
   >>>>>>>>>>> > into.  You?ll have to pay me if you want me to do your tech   
   support.   
   >>>>>>>>>>> > :-)   
   >>>>>>>>>>> >   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Unreadable and it is not a utf-8 issue.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> [rest of support request snipped]   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> Have you sent me a check?  If so, you?re going to have to wait   
   until I   
   >>>>>>>>>> can cash it.  If not, take your 1980s tech woes elsewhere.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>The solution on my end is simple; ignore posts that don't adhere to   
   the RFC.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Where is it non-compliant.  Since it looks fine to everyone but you,   
   >>>>>>>> are you sure it isn't YOUR end that is not RFC compliant?   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>Rean the RFC.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> OK.  Your reception is non-compliant.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>Bile spewing idiot.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> So your complaint that his transmission is non-compliant in the face   
   >>>> of it looking fine to everyone but you would be what?   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>>When was your poll taken to determine the percentage of people that see   
   >>>those characters as a single quote?   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Why are you the only one complaining, Jim?   
   >>   
   >   
   >Only one to notice.   
   >   
      
   Yes, that's what I've said, but you wanted to argue with me about it.   
   Nobody else sees it, Jim.  It's just YOU.   
      
   >   
   >Only one to make the effort to comment.   
   >   
      
   And nobody bothered even when you started caterwauling about it?  Why   
   do they all hate you so, Jim?   
      
   >   
   >A statement of fact is not a complaint.   
   >   
      
   Really?  On what planet?   
      
   Let me help you out.  "This meat is overcooked."  Assuming the meat   
   actually is overcooked, that's a statement of fact.  It's also a   
   complaint about the state of the meat.   
      
   Now tell me again how a "statement of fact is not a complaint".   
      
   >>>   
   >>>Why do you care so much that you keep going on about it?   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Because I think it gives great insight into how your head works (or   
   >> doesn't).  You're the only one complaining, yet you insist that the   
   >> problem must be at his end.  Typical of you.  Jim is never wrong; it's   
   >> always the other guy.   
   >   
   >And you are the only school yard bully going on and on and on and on   
   >about it.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> Why did you bring it up?   
   >   
   >Because reading his posts were annoying, but I have solved that problem.   
   >   
      
   Yet here you are, still caterwauling about it.   
      
      
   --   
   You are   
   What you do   
   When it counts.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)