On Sat, 10 Mar 2001 06:44:02 +1100, David Strike <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>On Saturday, March 10, 2001 3:26 AM, Reef Fish wrote:
>
>(snip)
>> I am a tax-payer in the USA.  My taxes go toward paying for
>> employees of the US Government.
>
>> Notice I am ascertaining the FACTS first, and let you answer and
>> explain, publicly, rather than having me writing a private letter
>> to Uncle Sam to tell you to "cease and desist" before giving you
>> a chance to clarify and explain yourself, since you not only
>> refused to shut up, but you persisted in repeating the SAME LIES
>> about me, in particular.
>
>Bob! Threats are only valid when there's an intention to follow through on
>them.  If that's your intention - whether supported by fact or not - then
>you will be treading the same path as Quinn.

Strike, I tried to express very carefully the REASON for my question
and contemplated action (which could be construed to be a "threat"
against IMPROPER behavior, on legal grounds).  Otherwise, it would
be pointless to make that point.

I also stated very carefully WHY my contemplated action is COMPLETELY
different from Quinn Harry's action, of which I am painfully familiar.
That is why I am giving Lee every opportunity to clarify and
explain himself on his persistent public slander about me.


>(And to give him his due, he was man enough to apologise and make
> attempts to rectify the situation.)

That's Quinn Harry.  I acknowledged that.  More than once.  But he
acted completely improperly, with his company name, and he was
very clearly the possible target of a lawsuit, of which I was advised
by several, but chose not to pursue, given Quinn's apology.


>Given the support that you recieved when that happened, it's reasonable to
>assume that Lee will receive at least as much support from those of us who
>believe threats or actions of this nature to be abhorrent!

Well, I have responded to Huw about this issue, and I have responded
to Lee's non-response and HIS THREAT of Government Action, which
is a far more EXPLICIT and STRONGER threat than MY statement of
mere contemplated action on my part.

Now we are at least on equal footing on THAT score.

I have my reasons and legs to stand on, morally and legally.
That's all that matters to me.  I, and only I, am responsible for
my action.

I appreciate the concern and advice expressed by Huw and you on the
matter, and I value the opinion of BOTH of you highly.   However,
I trust you and the readership will get over what we call the "knee
jerk reaction" to what I wrote, especially in view of Lee's
uncalled for response, and come to terms with the fact and
realization that, in my opinion, Lee has carried his part far
beyond what decency allows, even in a LIST discussion, on the net.

This is a good point for me to take a longer break than usual.

I'll be travelling on the road in less than two hours.

-- Bob.