>>I originally replied to Brandon, not you, because IMO your statement was unclear. You protested that your phrasing was clear. Obviously you did not appreciate the difference between your phrasing and mine. I provided an example to you because you asked. The language I use to provide the example is irrelevant, as long as you and I understand it so the distinction can be made.
>
>>>
>>>Naomi
>>>
>
>>>Don't be dense. I don't want to get into an argument with you, because you might steal my password and break into my account - as you did to Andy Kramek - and who knows what mischief you'll do then.
>>
>>Now, that is nasty
>>
>
>Agreed. I have taken a few blows on the chin myself here, most deserved, and can testify that they sting. Naomi may be a troubled soul but she is in there working hard and has contributed a heck of a lot to this site. We should be grateful instead of backbiting little snipes.

I agree.