On Sat, 9 Sep 2000 12:11:18 -0500, Chuck <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "John Nitrox" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2000 11:50 AM
>Subject: Re: [SCUBA-SE] Some INTERESTING statistics and an Editorial
>
>
>> Dear Chuck,
>>
>>
>> At 07:31 AM 9/9/00 -0500, you wrote:
>> >>
>> >Get over it Bob. Put a period in it. Not many other than you are
carrying
>> >this particular torch and you are making yourself out to be a fool
and/or
>> >curmudgeon.
>> >
>>         I'm grateful to Jeff for giving us a home on SCUBA-SE, but we all
>still
>> know why we are here, and decorum would suggest that you, Chuck, not be
>the
>> first to call Bob names and to tell him to "get over it."
>>
>Go back and review.  The first mud was slung by Bob after I commented that
>the name was unimportant.
>
>CH

Cite the "first mud slung by Bob"!   Go back and review YOURSELF.

That was when I EXPLAINED to you and the readers why among other
things, the name IS important, after this rather obvious HUMOR
in response to your statement that "the name is not important".

This was the EXACT context:

 >>what is in a name?  A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
 >>
 >>CH
 >
 > I'll tell you what's in a name in this case, Chuck Simicich!  ;-)
 >
 > There is NO sweet-smelling rose, but stench from Nick Simicich's

Is that what you called the first mud slung against you, by calling
you "Chuck Simicich" in the above context?  Did you miss the smiley?

If that's NOT what you meant, you need to better explain yourself.
I've slung no mud against you.  I have cited FACTS against you, which
I can well understand why you don't like to be reminded.

I made MY Editorial.  You're welcome to make your own.  But if you're
going to call me names because I have stated my case, then you've got
a LOT to learn, Chuck!

-- Bob.