Subj : Routes
To   : Ross Cassell
From : Darrell Salter
Date : Thu Jun 21 2001 11:30 pm

Ross Cassell wrote in a message to Darrell Salter:

 DS> No problem, my drum's been banged on extensively and thank you for
 DS> making my point even though I'm sure you didn't intend to. <smile> I'm
 DS> not naive and I've never expected everyone to appreciate or agree with
 DS> my contributions to this network.

 RC> I have no doubt that you have gone out of the way to help your
 RC> regional sysops, especially in the mad scramble to fill Ken Wilsons
 RC> shoes among possible other things. 

Things you'd have no idea of, son.

 RC> You have also gone out of the way to crucify others because they 
 RC> dont do or think as you do.

Hardly. You've never seen my bad side. ;-)

 DS>  I do know this, right or wrong, I've always made an effort to 
 DS> take responsibility for my actions. I've been known to accept a 
 DS> pat on the back and I've been known to apologise when I've messed 
 DS> up.

 RC> You never apologized for your error except in a private comment to
 RC> me, 

Nope, you're wrong or lying, depending on whether you've forgotten or not. 

 RC> my info wasnt the only info you betrayed dude, you would not
 RC> have apologized to me if it not had been me who netmailed you,
 RC> telling you about your error. 

Your memory is shot, or is it selective? :) 

 RC> What happened with your regional echo was _wrong_.
 RC> What happened with the seenby thing was _wrong_.
 RC> What you did was _wrong_.

Nope. One very important distinction ... I made a mistake of oversight for 
which I apologised. The other actions you refer to above were deliberate and 
malicious. Your inability or unwillingness to discern the difference is one of 
your major flaws, a flaw that runs rampant among your ilk.

 RC> All the incidents have one thing in common they _cannot_ be undone.

Duh, nothing in the past can be undone. Einstein. You're going off on one of 
your irrelevant tangants again in an effort to defend your buddies. Same old, 
same old.

 RC> You sir are no more perfect than the next guy and cannot be
 RC> considered an Angel held on high.

Good grief, do you think you could try to raise the intellectual bar a little 
here, Ross? The point originally made was that you cannot point a finger at 
anyone. You're making your opponent's argument while failing to provide a 
suitable counter-argument. As it stands, you're showing yourself to be worse 
than the ones you seek to chastise. If that's your intention and you don't wish 
to argue the point, I'll have to settle for having one more laugh at your 
expense.

Darrell

darrell@sprk.com, ICQ:31483752

Net229 HomePage             Mirror Sites
---------------             ------------
http://net229.darktech.org  http://net229.dyndns.org
                            http://net229.bbsnet.ca 
--- 
 * Origin: http://www.sprk.com (1:229/438)

.