My evaluation of YOUR message Rev. Pigeon. >Dear boy, things we must realise... Ahh.. That old Classic, determination. We butt horns and establish who is the alpha-wolf. But now, out of the trees, What's this called? --Establishing who is better, more fit for anything... By simply using the word "boy," you've brought up your own inadequecy problems. Why? Because you felt the need to assert your Cyber-dominance. Elementary. >1. Attitudes and opinions will not be changed by swearing and immature, >playground-esque remarks I don't plan to change a thing. You (and the 'yous' are collective) can be whoever you want to be. The possbilities are endless. And swearing and sardonic cynicism are merely for emphasis. After all, I assume I got my point across with the first message. Why? Because it divulged this kind of insulting and abusive reply from you. Elementary. >2. The fact that the words coming from people whom you don't even know >could hurt so much must be analyzed more closely. I presume that you suffer >from many insecurities about your own intellectuality, thus forcing you to >result to cyberviolence. Therefore, the place for you is not a Salinger >mailing list, but the office of a good psychiatrist to help you deal with >these feelings of inadequacy. The words you're referring to hurt for far more substantial reasons than my own insecurities. Besides, Reverend, who suffers more than God? But, now, read the analysis of the first paragraph again. >3. Taking the Lord's name in vain will get you nowhere but Hell. ;) >(But that's your own decision) That old threat. Please.. Salvation and Damnation aren't determined by words. Have you read "Teddy?" Well... now that that is over, I'd like to add that I read your entire post in a snotty English, and yes, STILL condescending accent. Oh ho um.. -jared