🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <ucvirkpsex.fsf@pace.picante.com>,
Grant Taylor <gtaylor@pace.picante.com> wrote:
>
>Please respond or I will be forced to continue assuming you only
>answer questions which you can easily avoid or where you can sneak
>unfounded accusations into the answer.
>-- 


	You know Grant--if I responded to all that addressed me 
people would go nuts claiming I was over-running the group.  Not 
that I care--just an observation--some that complain go on to quote 
me in message after message.

	But in terms of deciding who to address I do have to be selective 
for matters of personal time and also because some, like yourself, make 
points that are utter nonsense, present them in an uncivil fashion, or
repeat arguments over and and over when there is a disagreement and no
resolution will come of it.  I believe in the absolute necessity of 
consumer protection legislation on the usenet and also universal 
access--you do not and we'll never agree.  I haven't seen anything new 
in your argumets worth more the time of addressing although I may
very well have carelessly bypassed something.

	There are a few here that I don't address at all anymore because 
they have histories of dishonesty and there is no point--you are not
in that catagory.

	If you have clear question that hasn't already been addressed 
please present it in a concise and non-insulting manner and I'll 
address it if it's rational.  But I'll debate the wisdom of Ma. Campaign 
finance law for example--it exists and those who disagree with it have 
every right to change it just as I have every right to see to it that it 
is encorced and to advocate for its expansion.

				Steve