At 03:07 PM 3/4/00 +0900, Jean-Marc wrote:
>"Robert F. Ling" wrote:
>> In my response to Luke on his proposed guideline about 'name
>> calling', I used an apocryphal Mr. X in my response to explain
>> why Mr. X deserved to be called an IDIOT because of his ACT
>> which makes him one.
>> Your ACT (now the FOURTH post on YOUR same frivol) makes you
>> a perfect example of Mr. X personified.
>How predictible. Every time you get on the wrong
>side of an argument, you end up with name calling.

What did I call you?   ;-)

I actually anticipated your type of response, and that was
why I PHRASED it very carefully.

I said Mr. X DESERVED to be called an IDIOT.  By implication
of what you cited, I implied that you DESERVED to be called
an idiot, but you didn't get what you deserved, from me, in
terms of deserved name-calling.

See, it's your problem in the usage of English again, that made
you twisted purple with bulging veins on a JOKE.  You should
have heeded my advice:

RFL>If you have nothing to post about LESSONS to learn from your
RFL>reported incident of OOA, or anything SCUBA-related to that
RFL>incident, just GO AWAY!

>You have been exposed for a liar and thats the end
>of the story.

More untrue frivol.  That made it the FIFTH post in a row, by you.
>I'm through with this thread.

Good!  Even though it was 4 postings too late.  "Better late
than never".

>Every time you get on the wrong
>side of an argument, you end up with name calling.

Note, Jean-Marc -- I STILL haven't called you any names, even
though by now you well DESERVED it!  Your allegation is of
course false and unsubstantiated.

Bon voyage, and DON'T return soon.

-- Bob.

P.S. I should have cited Strike's immortal words, not addressed to
     you, but applied perfectly to you, "take your ball and go home".

P.P.S.  Perhaps it was wise that I DIDN'T use Strike's immortal
     words before, because you would have replied that I LIED
     because there was no ball!  ;-)   C'est la vie.  <sigh>