Get a grip. The message you quote was addressed to Rod Paddock, responding to comments written by Rod Paddock. Nice try at further obfuscation, you idiot.

So Steve, I am going to ask this question again, as a Canadian Citizen who is granted the privledge of working in the United States, are you threatening me(terroristic or otherwise)over the Internet with personal and/or professional harm?.

Read it again. I wrote:

You are entitled to your opinions, but I promise you 
that continuing to express views and innuendo that are fabricated 
and demonstrably false will be very expensive for you, both 
personally and professionally. 

Translation, as if you need it: The self-inflicted loss of credibility that comes with being publicly and repeatedly exposed as a liar, ass, and scumbag has wholly foreseeable and negative consequences for your ability to retain current clients, on your ability to generate future consulting business, and on your ego. You have an MBA. You know this.

I find your attempt at baiting me, and the introduction of legal language and implying legal actions on your part or on mine, as well as thinly veiled threats to my professional treaty rights, to be deeply unctuous and disgraceful. Moreover the insertion of the "terroristic" hot-button buzzword in this context is childish in the extreme.

JVP: I don't go around threatening you, you had better not go around threatening me, personally, professionally, or otherwise. That Steve, is going over the line. I think when cooler heads prevail, you will realize this too.

You are the author of your own misfortune.

**--** Steve

>>>
>You are entitled to your opinions, but I promise you that continuing to express views and innuendo that are fabricated and demonstrably false will be very expensive for you, both personally and professionally.
><<
>
>Just to be clarify, are you threatening me? You think you have a cause of action for libel and/or defamation? What's your claim? Jurisdictionally, where do you plan to file? Canada or the United States? What are your damages? Can they be quantified? What relief do you seek? Do you seek injunctive relief or monetary damages?
>
>Considering I have done nothing more than commented on the words you have used here, I don't think you have much of a claim. And if you did think you had a claim, you can bet I would counter claim. I do believe you have slinged a few slights my way. And, I can also assert the affirmative defense of the truth. You see Steve, you have questioned the ethics of others, including my friend Rod, where in message 653121, you said the following:
>
>
>For the vast majority of people, avoiding the early pioneering costs is the better tactic, and this means not blindly thinking you have to act now because "time is on your side" or, worse, "while they still have work". That's a borderline unethical pronouncement, which leads me to ask, Rod, give me a single example where not being exposed to version one software has hurt anybody.
>
>What you are telling people is "Act Now!" before anyone can identify the .NET rookie mistakes. That's unconscionable. All this does is flock innocent people, people who respect your opinion, towards expensive and potentially client ruining escapades based on mediocre books, mediocre training, and mediocre software engineering. The level of insight into applications with .NET is very low, and this isn't something we can just wish away like a billion dollars can wish away vital parts a development tool's lifecycle.
>
>
>In other posts, you have called my ethics into question on numerous times Re: dataclas.
>
>So Steve, I am going to ask this question again, as a Canadian Citizen who is granted the privledge of working in the United States, are you threatening me(terroristic or otherwise)over the Internet with personal and/or professional harm?
>
>At this point, I am going to assume the answer is no. Right now, I have a bona fide cause of action. You want to have a debate, fine, then lets have a debate. I don't go around threatening you, you had better not go around threatening me, personally, professionally, or otherwise. That Steve, is going over the line. I think when cooler heads prevail, you will realize this too.
>
>At this point, I shall presume you did not intend the aforementioned statement in the spirit in which it was offered.