On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 17:03:13 +1000, Christian Gerzner
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 00:23:07 -0400, Reef Fish
><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>(Snips)
>
>> You ARE the kind of CHICKEN SHIT and SNIPER that fits the profile
>> of the Robert Lung of Yahoo, perfectly!
>
>I really didn't want to buy into this argument ... but:
>
>I agree, entirely, that a person who abuses another under a pseudonym
>is an indefensible act.

That's a good start.  Chuck disagreed strongly on that point and
then DUCKED under his cloak by saying that he kill-filed me,
rather than continue to debate on the issue.

>
>Having said that I also believe that Chuck, who has crossed swords
>with you many a time (as I have) is highly unlikely to be the culprit,
>simply by going on his record in this regard.

No problem with you or anyone else, expressing their OPINION.

>
>Why would/should he? He's a big boy, entirely capable of looking after
<himself.

That's where differ on our assessment of a "big boy" vs a "little
sniper" who snipes and takes the convenient ducking of REASON
by saying he would kill-file someone who disagrees with him.

I NEVER kill-file anyone.  If I express my disagreement or
agreement, it's ALWAYS on the basis of having READ what they
have to say.

That's what a "big boy" should do!

>
>I much doubt that it's one of the stronger characters on this list, I
>rather think it's one of the lurkers who finally decided that action,
>however nefarious and anonymous, was better than no action at all.
>
>Alternatively it could have been someone who decided that another Reef
>Fish "Froth At The Mouth" performance was a requirement rather than a
>very doubtful, indeed dodgy, option.


Instead of expressing idle speculations, why don't we see if this
"big" or "little"  boy is big enough to identify HIMSELF, since
he has already identified himself privately to other big or
little boys on the LIST!

-- Bob.