VanguardLH wrote:
> "Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries" wrote in
> <news:g2msju$fqr$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com >:
>
>> Y'know, it's not just you're a control freak. It's that you're a a
>> control freak with way too much time on your hands.
>>
>> Sheesh.
>
> Reminds me of the old joke:
>
> Fat lady is in the bakery. Another fat lady walks in. First fat lady
> berates the first by saying, "Everytime I'm in here I see you here."
> Well, the first fat lady just berated herself, too.
>
> ("fat lady" can be replaced with "fat man" implying the consumption of
> too many bakery goods ["fat person" just doesn't make the joke sing],
> or even replace with "cop" due to the stereotyping)
>
> You insulted yourself by your own logic. Okay.
Fallacy. Tu quoque.
>> P.S. The only thing Max could have done better was to make note of
>> the fact that he had set follow-ups. That is the convention. You
>> could've made a better argument if you'd focused on that aspect
>> rather than trying to be a net-nanny.
>
> Ah, so you cannot defend you stance on using that header.
You snipped the rest of what I wrote...for this?
Setting follow-ups is the convention. If you want to go out and campaign
for a new convention, feel free, but bitching at Max for following the
accepted convention is kinda like defending top-posting.
In other words, you may think there are good reasons for your opinion,
but it's still just your opinion.
P.S. RFC 1855, RFC 1036, RFC 2076. You might also want to see Son of
1036. I'll take Henry Spencer over you, any day of the week.
<plonk>
--
Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries
If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will
scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will
refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something
which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he
will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is
explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell