>Sorry, George, but I **HAVE** to post FOR THE RECORD...
>
>Firstly, suddenly 2 "phrases" used quite some time ago cause this sudden rage in you? Boy, that's unfortunate!

And I have to respond for "the record".

Sometime ago? Try this within this last calendar year, pal. Further, it doesn't matter when it happend. It happened. Period. And you remain unapologetic about it and yet try to tell the rest of us how to behave? Sorry, that doesn't cut it.

>Secondly, would you do me the favour and tell me what it is that I am "wrong" about? If it's the use of that "phrase" some time ago and my lack of apology then I can only take your current attitude as, again, unfortunate. If it's because Michel "put it in the bit bucket.." then maybe, just maybe, you are wrong! Your virginal ears can withstand such words if you'll only give them a chance.

Well, I did reply, Maybe I hit preview rather than send. I think I did hit send. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's not something you'd know about.

As far as my "virginal ears", you couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

>Now, on to the "meat" of the issue - your prior post of drivel and lies:
>You said: "I never, ever say anything on-line that I wouldn't say to someone F2F. It's part of where I grew up.". Probably true if you don't include UT Private message threats as "online".

You're so full of it, your eyes are brown. If you've got a problem with that, so be it. And I do include private messages

>You said: "I'd also say that I've no "vendetta".". No "vendetta? HA! What a load of bull.

Why? Because I disagreed? That's me right.

2+ years ago you started being awfully snarky/snide/even insulting in responses to many of my posts. I answered in kind, as I am wont to do.

Want to post the message numbers?

Soon I got a UT Private from you warning me to shut up or you'd 'say things online that I surely wouldn't like'.

I think you're referring to an "attack" that you intitiated with a post that I made to told you that I had no idea of what you were talking about and told you to go ahead so that I could find out too. You didn't. The crapola responses continued and I continued in kind. Then came the same UT Private a month or two later. Same result from my side, and yours. The crapola continued. But this time, as well as answering in kind, you were forced to "out" the problem.

I wasn't "forced" out of anything.

Finally the source of the VENDETTA became clear. For the record you had found out that I had made a sustained effort to stop Ed Rauh's INSULTS (to multiple people besides me) by having him barred from the UT. (Note, by the way, that Michel "turned a blind eye" there
>but that one's OK!??)

Ed's "insults" never included any profanity. Your's did and it wasn't even a post directed to you.

>You said: "What my problem was with this thread was fairly simple. Jim was complaining about someone's comportment.". You know, George, I was not complaining in that thread (this one, by the way) about "someone's" comportment. For the record, I was describing a certain "style" of comportment and SUGGESTING to the reader that if they felt that kind of comportment was not helpful and knew of any member who might exhibit such, they should bring it to the attention of UT management.

Oh, and you can read minds. Sorry, doesn't wash for me. You think that what I post is somehow directed towards you. I take each post individually.

>As regards my own behaviour here, how is it that you are so sure that anything I've said here ended up in "Michel's bit-bucket"? You have no idea as to whether that is true or not.

As I said, I don't know this for certain.

>If anyone had tried to get me barred, I wouldn't know it and neither would you. So don't jump to conclusions my dear friend.

Then why did you try to get Ed barred?

>Maybe, in my 2 - count them: 2!!! - uses of a certain phrase the context was considered when UT management reviewed them or when possible complainants considered registering a complaint.

And so...? Two is two too many. You weren't justified under any circumstances.

You have no idea and neither do I.
>And I don't think you can come close to accusing me of the style of comportment that I was writing about.

What does someone's writing "style" have to do with anything?

>You said: "I've no problem with Jim expressing his opinions. I do have a problem with anyone that indulges in the level of hypocrisy that he has.".
>And just where is that hypocrisy demonstrated, George?

If you can't see it, then why should I explain it?

It's rather simple. You want people to post as you would. OTOH, if they don't, you get upset. This, in spite of the fact that on two ocassions, in response to a technical post, you've used "that phrase". Hypocrisy is saying one thing and doin something else. You want us to comply with "your" way of stating things and dealing with people, yet not following the same.

>Wanna talk about something approaching hypocrisy... your twisting my message to serve as a vehicle to toss a cheap-shot while you say there is no vendetta! Now that's hypocrisy. My message told no one HOW TO BEHAVE. It did describe a behaviour and suggested an action if people felt such behaviour was not helpful.


I didn't twist anything. You continue to change the subject. You put something out for the rest of us to respond to and I responded, yet you call it a cheap shot. You're the one with a vendetta. Further, you should look up in the dictionary the definitions of "comportment" and "behavior".

>Your amply demonstrated hypocrisy includes your saying that there is no vendetta, your tolerance (and even 'encouragement', once you festering vendetta was exposed) of Ed Rauh's countless insults, your continued belittlement of the contributions of certain invididuals while all the while painting yourself as the master developer who is beyond reproach. You seem to conveniently forget all the times you've belittled people in your comments. Is that because you didn't use any contraband words to hurl your insults or because you are exempt for some reason?

First, do you care to show me one instance where Ed Rauh wasn't techincally and morally corrrect?

Second, I don't paint myself as a "master developer". If anything, I feel quite the contrary.

Third, if you've an instance where I've belittled someone, please post the message number.

Fourth, if I want to insult somebody, at least I've the skills to do so without having to resort to language that you do.

>Get real, George. Your vendetta is groundless - without merit - and should be put to rest as soon as possible. I'll be jumping in the next time you use your snide tone in a reply to members in you 'got no use for them' list.

You get real, Jim. The one "vendetta" is the one you have for me. I've never used a "snide tone". That's your assignment. If you don't like my responses, that's your problem. I'm not putting up with your "crud" any longer. You won't hear from me again unless you post to me in another thread.