On Wed, 7 Mar 2001 02:15:12 -0500, Confucio <[log in to unmask]>

In response to my challenge for him to address my previous response,
which he had conveniently ignored, still ignores for that matter:

> >PS As an aside, at least some would know that I have serious
> >reservations about these devices per se. That has _nothing_ to do
> >with _this_ discussion where the blind obedience to these things, as
> >promulgated by our Italian friend, is probably treated with, I
> >would think, more than a little concern by the vast (at the very least)
> >majority on this Forum.
>
> The "vast majority" represents the opinion of persons
> like you, who have absolutely nothing to say.

Talk about a cop out. Again, I might add. Are you, BTW, here referring
to listmembers?

Now I know that there are some that think that all this is just some
kind of giant turn on for "Confucio", or his alter ego (if that is
also to be believed), but it seriously pisses (apologies, I don't
normally use such language) me off when, for whatever reason the
person doing the pissing (read into that whatever you consider
reasonable) could by his stupid and irrational arguments influence
others with less experience than most on _this_ Forum.

It happens that the web trawlers _will_ pick this kind of thing up
and, out of context, someone might actually believe Confucio's
rantings. Is this a good, leave alone responsible, thing? I for one
certainly don't think so. Diving is _not_ tiddlywinks (something I
commend to Confucio as a substitute).

So, Confucio, care to address my reply with some reasoned logic?
Please, not ranting or raving, just proper argument which makes all of
us understand that _we_ were wrong and _you_ are right. So far I
rather doubt that we've had any of that from you so it would be most refreshing.

Christian