Len,

Hmmmmmm, lets see. I post a message here and I see Jesse's name in the reply list along with Ed's. Whose reply do you think I would goto first. Do you really think Jesse would ad information to a message from Ed????

And the fact that you have issues with Ed's wit is your problem. Don't try to make it someone elses also.

Sorry bud. But if you disappeared from here tomorrow, I don't think there would be a hoot at all from the crowd. But when Ed was gone for a while, this summer, he was greatly missed.

But don't worry. I'll let you know as soon as I see the first message where people can't decide the proper course and someone mentions that "If only Len was here, he would know what to do".

PF

>>Ed,
>>No matter how you explain it, the word you used is still unaccepted in a Christian community and other religion who practices the doctrice they embrace. Anyways, the way you handle arguments and technical debates reflects your attitude. Tsk, tsk, tsk...
>>
>>>And I ain't a Christian.
>>It's not surprising to me.
>
>Jess,
>I would have thought you have been a member of this forum long enough to know that Ed worships nobody but himself.
>
>Being awarded a doctorate will only serve to enhance his own overinflated idea of himself.
>
>His lack of wit, & inability to express himself cogently, has regularly shown itself in the form of language that is unacceptable to the majority of people.
>
>Shortly after joining UT, I received the following in a private post, from another UT member, which, like his replies to many VFP questions, it is very accurate. :
>
>"You will find that the inimitable Ed Rauh is the most sarcastic (always negatively overtoned) and descriptive (often with violent/bloody/carnal imagery) of the bunch. Also the person who requested the "twit filter" and who promotes it most. Funny, but if the tone here was respectful and a tad more thorough, a "twit" filter wouldn't be required. And the real twits (of which I number Mr. Rauh as number 1) would summarily be out of here by management decree."