🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Jul21.163510.1709@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson) writes:
>IT WAS NOT MY POST. I WAS RESPONDING TO A THREAD THAT WAS DAYS OLD ALREADY.
>I MADE NO CLAIM TO PROVE THAT HE WAS A HATE MONGER. I NEVER SAID HE WAS A HATE
>MONGER. PLEASE LOOK MORE CLOSELY BEFORE CRTICIZING ME FOR PAGES ON END.
>
>It was not my claim, asshole.In fact, I began my post by saying "I have never
>heard Rush on the subject of race". DO YOU KNOW HOW TO READ??

>No, you take your crap to alt.pathetic asshole. Read who said what. I
>even admitted that my story was taking this thread in a different direction.
>
>No, ASSWIPE, you owe ME an apology. You did not read my post properly, and
>then preceeded to blast me for it for pages on end. 
>>
>-rob

Dear rob,

It was so nice of you to take the time to write!!  I am happy to take
time to publicly apologize to you for assuming that that you were the
original poster.  I should have checked more carefully.  I should be
spanked.  However, I do not apologize for assuming that a followup post
is related to the original regardless of who posted it.  The original
said he was a hate monger; someone else asked for evidence and then you
followed with an example of an imperfect Rush argument about censorship.
I wonder how I could have gotten confused?  Please note, rob, that I
never called you names although you have responded by calling me an
asshole and asswipe.  I did imply that your POST was stupid and pathetic
but I never said that you were.  I have said some stupid and pathetic
things in my life but I am neither stupid nor pathetic (at least that is
the current consensus of those who know me, however, this is subject to
reevaluation :)) and I doubt very much if you are stupid or pathetic
either.  Again I apologize for my carelessness in reading the headers.
I hope the rest of your day goes better.

Love,

Tim