>>>> That was not a ruling. That was advice to Richardson.   
      
   >>> It was your official interpretation of the rule, and it   
   >>> makes the rule moot.   
      
   >> No, it was not. There is no rule against anyone reading the   
   >> echo, that was advice to stop doing so.   
      
    EC> As usual, you pretend to miss the point.  You ruled that if   
      
    As usual, you make something up to pretend that you have an   
    actual point.   
      
    EC> anyone feels they are being provoked in your echo they   
    EC> should react by not reading the provocation.  That makes   
      
    Now you falsify the actual statement. There was no such   
    *RULING*, it was a *SUGGESTION*. Your spin is false.   
      
    EC> Peter's provocation rule moot, just as it makes the rule   
      
    Believe it or not, you can ignore any echo you want and it has   
    no effect on any echo rule. Peter's rule did not require anyone   
    to read the echo.   
      
    EC> about personal attacks moot.  This was already explained   
    EC> more thoroughly. You just ignored it.  Nothing new.   
      
    You made false claims and then pretend I ignored something that   
    never happened. Nothing new.   
      
      
      
   BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn   
      
   --- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]   
    * Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)