Just like Usenet, only better..</head>

A very depressing encounter

It takes a lot of guts to write a pseudonymous attack to someone you don't know. It takes a lot of guts to get defensive and accuse the other person of being rude and nasty when you basically told them they sucked in your first message. And it takes a lot of guts to claim you're smarter than that other person, particularly when you apparently lack simple reading and writing skills.

This is the tale of someone who was brave enough to try that, and ended.. flustered. Why do I say it was depressing? Probably because it makes me think that

the intelligence of the average person on the net has slipped another couple of points, and
UK public schools suck.

Somehow, that's wrong. But that's another rant for another day.

(Note: These messages have been reformatted because loser couldn't use a real mail client.)

The First Message

From Crimson@extinct.co.uk Fri Jul 21 05:47:36 2000
Return-path: 
Envelope-to: phloem@fumbling.com
Delivery-date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 05:47:36 -0700
Message-ID: <29290590.964183633566.JavaMail.root@smtp.backend.another.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 13:47:13 +0100 (GMT+01:00)
From: Crimson@extinct.co.uk
To: phloem@fumbling.com
Subject: ER
Mime-Version: 1.0
Status: RO

--6141973.964183633556.JavaMail.root@www-a30
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Your ER site is nothing, if not thorough but god you bitch so much
about the smallest detail.  A true fan looks past small faults and 
appreciates the episode for what it is.  The two-parter where Lucy is
killed (Be Still My Heart and In The Family) is such a wonderful and
indepth episode.  Every character is given at least one fantastic
scene, so even the hardest and most disliked characters (Rocket
Romano) show that they can be sensitive.  Just watch the episodes for 
fun and enjoy the limited number there are in each series. 

And another thing.  Keri (note the spelling) Weaver is the greatest
character.  She's tough when she needs to be and caring to thouse who
deserves it.  If only she had fired Doug Ross and that bitch Susan
when she had the chance.  Geane always got Keri's sympathy as well as
Carter (who lived with her.  Wonderful moments between those two),
Elizabeth, Mark , Carol, Kovac and of course the late Lucy Knight. 

Please stop bitching and enjoy ER liked ever other true fan.

P.S. Where the Wild Things Are was a wonderful, heart warming episode!

Be whoever you want to be with another.com
Just click here:
http://another.com/jump.jsp?destDesc=another.com/login.jsp?sig=390

I hate it when people who have no idea what they're talking about try to correct me (and I hate it even more when people complain about negative reviews; are you unfamiliar with the concept of a review?), so I fired off

The First Reply

From phloem Fri Jul 21 17:16:33 2000
Subject: Re: ER
To: Crimson@extinct.co.uk
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 17:16:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <29290590.964183633566.JavaMail.root@smtp.backend.another.com> from "Crimson@extinct.co.uk" at Jul 21, 0 01:47:13 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1585
Status: RO

Crimson@extinct.co.uk wrote:

> Your ER site is nothing, if not thorough but god you bitch so much
> about the smallest detail.  A true fan looks past small faults and
> appreciates the episode for what it is.

Ah, yes, mindless enthusiasm and thoughtless acceptance of what is
handed to you. I'm not a true fan because I have taste and because I
have preferences.

If you don't like what we're doing, don't visit the site. It's really
that simple. Nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to
read anything you don't want to, or anything that you find offensive. 

If you like, I could arrange to have "mindless, drooling moron"
reviews posted every week: "This episode was great. Cleo was
funny. Luka's hot. The end." Would you prefer that? 

>      And another thing.  Keri (note the spelling) Weaver

No, *you* note the spelling. It's K-E-R-R-Y, and I have the
closed-captioning and the press kit from Warner Bros. to prove it. I
love it when people who have no idea what they're talking about try to
correct me. 

> P.S. Where the Wild Things Are was a wonderful, heart warming
episode!

That must be nice. Wish I'd seen it.

Since your points in this e-mail seemed to be

* you suck
* you're not a real fan
* "I don't know what I'm talking about" and
* "I am a clueless moron"

did you have anything you really wanted to say, or were you just
whinging?

--
mike sugimoto, gmd/cs/ss   phloem@fumbling.com http://fumbling.com/
"and though the static walls surround me, you were out there and you
found me, i was out here listening all the time.." --dar williams

.. which is pretty mild as far as replies to that kind of mail go. But no, loser had to take it to a new level:

The Second Message

From Crimson@extinct.co.uk Sun Jul 23 07:33:00 2000
Return-path: 
Envelope-to: phloem@fumbling.com
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 15:32:36 +0100 (GMT+01:00)
From: Crimson@extinct.co.uk
To: phloem@fumbling.com
Subject: Rebuke!

You're so correct *Mike*, I really don't know every little detail from
ER, un-like you I *have* a social life.  For someone who isn't "a true
fan" you don't half waste your life on a website (well over 200 pages
long) about a program you don't truly enjoy.  As for your "I have
taste", you wouldn't know taste if it came and fucked your brains
out. 

Also "I have the closed-captioning and the press kit from Warner
Bros." How pathetic are you?  (take it as a question or a statement,
it truly dosen't both me)  I've cannot fathom why anyone, firstly
would want the closed-captioning and the press kit from Warner Bros
and secondly why someone who isn't "a true fan" would waste so much
time and money on something they aren't bothered about.

If I were you I wouldn't both to post a "mindless, drooling moron
reviews", your entire web site just screams that phrase.  I emphesis
my previous statement of  "appreciates the episode for what it is."
You couldn't do what they do, not in a million years.  With all
honesty I can assure you ER doesn't want *fans*, if that's what you
are, like you. Get a *LIFE*!

P.S.  Don't worry, in the future I *won't* visit your website, life is
too short to be wasted on trash.

P.P.S.  Through this entire e-mail I have used *______* continuously,
to emphasise how much I loath your usage of it, as I'm sure do many
other people. 

P.P.P.S.  In future e-mails could you please expand your vocabulary
beyond the realms of *suck* and *moron*.

Be whoever you want to be with another.com
Just click here:
http://another.com/jump.jsp?destDesc=another.com/login.jsp?sig=390

Ow. "Get a life." I'm wounded.

The Second Reply

From phloem Sun Jul 23 08:15:10 2000
X-UIDL: d7d94bcabfee57d91bd2ef8261a9c25a
Subject: Re: Rebuke!
To: Crimson@extinct.co.uk
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 08:15:10 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To:
<29302731.964362756495.JavaMail.root@smtp.backend.another.com> from
"Crimson@extinct.co.uk" at Jul 23, 0 03:32:36 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 5376
Status: RO

Hey, by the way, your lines are broken. You should really get a mail
client that doesn't make you look like a bozo to the rest of the world
with properly configured software.

Oh, wait, Java-based WEB MAIL. Duh.

Crimson@extinct.co.uk wrote:

> Get a *LIFE*!

I'm consistently surprised at the number of people who still seem to
consider this some kind of an insult.

The funny thing is that over six years, the amount of material that
I've directly contributed to the site is minimal, maybe 10% or 15% of
the total volume (fun thing, collaboration), and maintenance may take
perhaps an hour or two per week (including answering e-mail from
dimwitted people like you who seem hell-bent on trying to insult,
flame, or otherwise complain mindlessly) -- so really, this is a
distractionary device to take my mind off of the rest of my life,
which is spent doing the stuff you see on the show for real. (Note I
write the medical commentary and precious little else, since that's
what I'm qualified to do.) Fortunately, the balance of e-mail seems to
be rather more positive than negative, people seem to appreciate what
we do (to the tune of 22,000 visitors/day), and so I can soundly file
your complaints as "statistical aberrations" and feel pretty good
about myself in the process. 

The fact I get to bat around people like you periodically, as my cats
bat pieces of string, makes my life that much more
interesting. Actually, I take that back -- it's more like watching
them kill and eat a spider. 

The thing is, you never really make clear what you hate about what we
do, or who exactly you despise most (nor do most people who seem to invest
a lot of bile and a lot of time, energy, and effort pecking out some
semblance of a flame), and you never tell us what you want
changed. You just say, "You have no life!" and scream and bitch when
we say, "That's nice. We don't care."

I never understood what compells people to complain about stuff like
this, particularly when it's pretty clear we're not going to change
anything on the basis of a single e-mail (or a lot of e-mail, for that
matter). Part of me wonders how much hate mail Roger Ebert must get --
how DARE he not like that movie? He must have NO TASTE! I honestly
wish I got more hate mail from people like you -- it might make for a
more interesting subject to write about than the usual "DEAR MR WEB
DEZINUR: PLS KIN I HVE NAOH WYLIES ADDRESS? I WANT TO SEND HIM A LUV
PRSNT. THNKU," I so often pick on in my publically accessable mail
archives. Well, more mail from people like you, and people whinging
about how offended they were that NBC would make fun of them. Those
are always fun too. 

What, did you expect us to say, "Oop, you're right. Here are the keys
to the site. You're better than we are, so good luck!" and then 
disappear? I'm serious: Did you HONESTLY expect something to change as
a result of your mail? Of course not. You just wanted to flame and to
criticize. Which is fine, but you're horrible at it, so you should
trundle over to alt.flame and get some practice. Be sure to tell them
all to get a life too, ok?

The basic sense that I get from your mail is that you DON'T actually
want anything to change, and would rather we just fucked off and died
because we're so stupid and clearly don't have any hope of
redemption. Well, to borrow a phrase from my two favorite gay cartoon
characters, "Same to you and lots more of it, pal." On the other hand,
if you did have something interesting to say, it got lost in your
feeble attempt at rhetoric and sarcasm. 

Try harder next time, okay? I guess that's what I'm trying to say
here. Normally that would bother me, but since you don't seem to know
what you're trying to say, I'm not going to worry too much about it. 

> P.P.S.  Through this entire e-mail I have used *______* continuously,
> to emphasise how much I loath your usage of it, as I'm sure do many
> other people.

That's nice. And I'm supposed to care about this because you'll report
me to the Syntactical Internet Police if I don't stop? (By the way,
your attempt at sarcastically parodying my use of asterisks and other
textual cues to indicate emphasis failed miserably. Sarcasm is the
highest and most wonderful form of ridicule and/or humor, but only if
it's carefully applied by a skilled artists -- which you, my friend,
certainly are not. I'd say you were jaw-droppingly inept when it comes
to sarcasm and satirical ridicule, but that's perhaps overstating the
case: my jaw didn't *actually* drop. "Lip-pursingly inept," perhaps.) 

> P.P.P.S.  In future e-mails could you please expand your vocabulary
> beyond the realms of *suck* and *moron*.

Why bother? They're accurate descriptors. Oh, I could use a lengthy
verbal detour to come up with something better, but what would that
prove? Not much. I was always a big believer in precision of language,
and I can hardly think of a better way to describe you: You really do
suck, and you're an even bigger moron than I thought. 

PS: Thanks for providing more fodder for said publically accessable
mail files. Anyone who tries to flame me using "get a life" in a
non-ironic context ends up in there. 

--
mike sugimoto, gmd/cs/ss   phloem@fumbling.com http://fumbling.com/
"and though the static walls surround me, you were out there and you
found me, i was out here listening all the time.." --dar williams

Okay, so maybe that was a little mean, but he had it coming. And yet, he's a sucker for punishment.. (Aside: It must *really* suck having to retype all those headers every time he tries to send e-mail. I guess reply doesn't work so well when you're hiding behind an anonymizing service and trying to keep your identity hidden.)

The Third Message

From: Crimson@extinct.co.uk
To: phloem@fumbling.com
Subject: Re: The White Dove!
--7465221.964441403709.JavaMail.root@www-a24
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I must tell you, while I was reading your last e-mail I couldn't stop
laughing.  Do you think by reading a few e-amils sent by me, you know
who I am?  Do they encompass me?  Are they the very essence of my
soul?  I think not.  You don't even know if I'm male or female.

Who are you to judge me?  Do you think because you've done a
website your the start all and end all of life?  If you do, "get down
from your cloud!"  I think I know what I'm talking about.  Right now
I'm doing, out of many degrees, Film Studies in America.  I know
exactly how to sell a film, or t.v. program and it is not like that.
Now I know your not trying to sell the programm, but the way to review
each episode, doesn't make anyone want to watch ER.  If that is your
goal, well done, because belive me after someone reads your website,
they'll hate ER. 

Don't leacture me on being stupid.  My I.Q. is ________, which I
guess is a damn site higher than yours.  Also I don't hate you.  I
find your lack of diplomacy a pity.  You should have a non-biased
opinion if you are to answer e-mails fairly.  And I do symapthise.  I
wouldn't want to reply to e-mails from fans who just want naked
pictures of the cast either. 

If you really want a list of what you can change in the site, then
here we go:

- Try to have a more positive opinion of each episode.  Most of the
people who visit your website are fans, who don't want to here every
small imperfection in the show.  They want to talk to people and
exchange reasons why each epiisode is so amazing.

- Add more on Laura Innes (Kerry Weaver), who not only acts but
directs several episodes, most notably the two parter where Lucy
dies. 

- Have a section about the actual actors and what they've done besides
ER.  Laura Innes (Deep Impact, directed an epsiode of The West Wing),
George Clooney (Three Kings, Out Of Sight, One Fine Day) or Geene (who
left to become a backing singer for Tina Turner).

-Kicking off anyone in the team who has no love of ER, for how can
they do a site which is visited by fans, if they themselves aren't
fans. 

And as an improve ment to your e-mails, don't use that annoying
quotation every e-mail.  If your using one at all, at least use
Shakespeare or Baron Alfred Tennyson. 

P.S.  I don't care how much more positive e-mails you get about the
site, "Minorities...are almost always in the right!" (Sydney Smith
17771 - 1845)

Your email address says a lot about you.

Express yourself @ another.com
http://another.com/jump.jsp?destDesc=another.com/login.jsp?sig=393

--7465221.964441403709.JavaMail.root@www-a24--

Whee. So not only am I stupid, but I'm dumber than someone who has problems with homonyms, logic, and.. oh, I'll just show

The Third Reply

From phloem Mon Jul 24 13:29:37 2000
Subject: Re: The White Dove!
To: Crimson@extinct.co.uk
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 13:29:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <10235878.964441403726.JavaMail.root@mx.another.com> from
"Crimson@extinct.co.uk" at Jul 24, 0 01:23:23 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 8846
Status: RO

Look, the bozo with the broken mail client is back.

Crimson@extinct.co.uk wrote:

> I must tell you, while I was reading your last e-mail I couldn't
> stop laughing.  Do you think by reading a few e-amils sent by me, you
> know who I am?  Do they encompass me?  Are they the very essence of my
> soul? I think not.  You don't even know if I'm male or female.

You're right, I don't know whether you're male or female. You know why
I don't know that? Because you're one of many anonymous cowards who
doesn't have the courage to sign their names to their posts.

And by the way, do you think that by reading some of my mail, some of
the content I authored on a Web site, you know who *I* am? Does my
site encompass me? Is my site the essence of my soul? 

>      Who are you to judge me?

Who the FUCK are you to judge ME? "You wouldn't know taste if it
fucked your brains out." Yeah, uh-huh. 

Do me a favor, huh? Look up "irony" in the dictionary. A *real*
dictionary, not the Alanis Morrisette meta-irony dictionary. Read the
definition. Now: 

Q. In 500 words or less, explain why Crimson@extinct.co.uk's
protestations about being judged based on e-mail interaction
constitute irony in light of comments such as:
  * "You wouldn't know taste if it fucked your brains out"
  * "My IQ is a damn site (sic) higher than yours"
  * "unlike you I have a social life"
  * "You couldn't do what they do, not in a million years"
  * "Get a *LIFE*!"
(10 pts.)

Bonus: Is Crimson@extinct.co.uk's position logically consistent? Why
or why not? Your answer should include a discussion how rhetoric runs
away from people who can't control it, a brief examination of the
essence of hypocrisy, and a careful analysis of
Crimson@extinct.co.uk's inability to construct a coherent argument. (5
pts.) 

> I think I know what I'm talking about.  Right now I'm
> doing, out of many degrees, Film Studies in America.  I know exactly
> how to sell a film, or t.v. program and it is not like that.  Now I
> know your not trying to sell the programm, but the way to review
> each episode, doesn't make anyone want to watch ER.  If that is your
> goal, well done, because belive me after someone reads your website, 
> they'll hate ER.

No, we're *not* trying to sell a TV show. We're writing *reviews* of a
TV show. That job belongs to the producers. We are not a PR firm; I'm a
Web publisher, not a marking executive.

If you're doing film studies, you should be eminently familiar with
the concept of a review -- you know, talk about the good and the bad
parts of the film, why it worked, why it failed.. unless this is
bizarro post-deconstructionist film studies, in which everything is
sacrosanct and you can't say you didn't like something because that
somehow invalidates its artistic merits. Or maybe you just have no
taste. How the fuck am I supposed to know?

It's a REVIEW. REVIEWS can be BAD. This is PART OF THEIR FUNDAMENTAL
NATURE. If people wanted to be told how great everything was, they'd
go to a porn site.

>      Don't leacture me on being stupid.  My I.Q. is ________, which I
> guess is a damn site higher than yours.
                  ^^^^
Yes, but you still can't spell. (Hint: You're looking for "sight.")
Not being able to distinguish between commonly used homophones kind of
ruins the "I'm smarter than you, neener neener neener" argument.

Anyway, so what? If you were *really* smart, you'd know that IQ is a
fundamentally meaningless measure and not very good at saying anything
about a person's ability. You'd also know that you'd have to provide a
test scale so that the person you were bragging to would be able to
find a reference point and establish how the number was measured. You
get 17 points for being dead on one test; knowing what scale was being
used helps to figure out what the number actually means. 

So what test did you use to determine your masterful intelligence, and
why won't you tell me the number? 

> Also I don't hate you.  I find your lack of diplomacy a pity.  You
> should have a non-biased opinion if you are to answer e-mails
> fairly.

If you want a non-biased opinion, maybe you shouldn't start by flaming
people and telling them they bitch too much about something, and then
telling them they have no taste. I have infinite amounts of patience
for people who show themselves worthy of it.

> - Try to have a more positive opinion of each episode.  Most of the
> people who visit your website are fans, who don't want to here every
> small imperfection in the show.  They want to talk to people and
> exchange reasons why each epiisode is so amazing.

And that's exactly what they do.. or didn't you notice the "Add/view
comments" link at the bottom of each page? Based on that content, I'd
say people are pretty happy, so we're not going to be changing a damn
thing. You'll also notice that many of my visitors are also
disillusioned with the content of recent seasons, and have said so --
many times. Some people are very happy with the content of recent
seasons, and they've said that too.

Funny thing, that Internet. Multiple-truth world and all of that..

> - Add more on Laura Innes (Kerry Weaver), who not only acts but directs
> several episodes, most notably the two parter where Lucy dies.

We are not a Larua Innes fan site.

> - Have a section about the actual actors and what they've done
> besides ER.  Laura Innes (Deep Impact, directed an epsiode of The West
> Wing), George Clooney (Three Kings, Out Of Sight, One Fine Day) or
> Geene (who left to become a backing singer for Tina Turner).

First, it's "Jeanie," which is trivially easy to check (and this is
the second time you've spelled her name wrong, and the second variation
thereof -- whoops, was I being biased again? Can't help it, but then
again, you should be smarter than me). Second, we are not an actor fan
site either. If it's unrelated to the show, we don't cover it. There
are other sites on the net that do that very well. We do what we do
very well. There is no point in overlapping.

> -Kicking off anyone in the team who has no love of ER, for how can
> they do a site which is visited by fans, if they themselves aren't
> fans. 

I would think that my review staff desperately loves "ER." If they
didn't, they wouldn't watch it. But that point might be lost on you,
as is the content of their complaints, because you haven't been
READING their articles. That doesn't really surprise me.

> And as an improve ment to your e-mails, don't use that annoying
> quotation every e-mail.  If your using one at all, at least use
> Shakespeare or Baron Alfred Tennyson.

"Improvement" is one word. The contraction you are looking for in the
second word of your second sentance is "you're," a concatenation of
"you are"; "your" is possessive and is therefore incorrect in that
usage. 

And I'll quote from whoever I damn well please, thank you very much.

(Normally, I don't indulge myself in gratuitous spelling flames, but
since you're smarter than me, you should be able to spell; I don't
have a problem engaging in gratuitous irony identification.) 

> P.S.  I don't care how much more positive e-mails you get about the
> site, "Minorities...are almost always in the right!" (Sydney Smith
> 17771 - 1845)

That's nice. Do you think that I actually care what some eighteenth
century intellectual has to say? Besides, that is an assertion that is
trivially easy to disprove, and absurd in the abstraction.

There is a minority of people out there who think you should be tossed
out of a 6th floor window as part of an experiment on
gravity. (Primarily a minority of me and my friends who have been
reading your e-mail, to much merriment; thank you for making a dull
weekend much better.) Does that make them right? A less personal
example might help more, since I'm supposed to be non-biased: a
minority of people still believe the earth is flat. Are they right?

Free hint: The plural of data is not anecdote, and until the number of
complaints matches or exceeds the number of nice notes, statistically
I have to say I'm doing a pretty good job. You can yap about the
silent majority all you want, but the bottom line is unless people are
pissed off (or wacky, in your case), they're not going to say
anything. Since the "aye"s seem to have in this case, I'm going to
have to rule your complaint unfounded and chalk the appeal to
intellectual power up to a grasping at straws. (In other words: you're
sinking fast, and you know it.) 

> Your email address says a lot about you.

It's the same e-mail address (well, same username, anyway) that I've
had for many years. What's your point?

--
mike sugimoto, gmd/cs/ss   phloem@fumbling.com http://fumbling.com/
"why do vegetarians spend so much time trying to make vegetables taste
like meat? do monks buy a lot of inflatable sex dolls?" --anne merkel

You'd think that would be enough, and you'd think that this would make the loser think twice about trying to trot out the "I'm smarter than you" argument AGAIN, but some people just don't learn, which compells them to send

The Fourth Message

Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 22:40:16 +0100 (GMT+01:00)
From: Crimson@extinct.co.uk
To: phloem@fumbling.com
Subject: End Game
Mime-Version: 1.0

--26999311.964647616247.JavaMail.root@www-a23
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In one of your e-mails you asked me to tell you what I felt could be
changed or added to the site.  In fact you lectured me on not doing it
and when I do add comments, tell you what I feel could improve the
site, instead of a proper, polite, or at least diplomatic reply, each
comment you insult or brush aside.  In truth I don't think you could
ever be happy, because I tried to be pleasent, sympathise with you and
give you what you want, still you sent unflattering e-mails. 

Firstly a small piece of advise "And as an improve ment to your
e-mails," is  correct, if I repace your with you're the sentance would
read "And as an improve ment to you are e-mails."  Hm, that somehow
doesn't sound right.  You lecture someone on English grammar and got
it wrong.  Why don't you look up 'irony' in the dictionary, asshole! 

Secondly, to not let strangers across the internet know your name is
not cowardly, it's common sense!  Unlike you all the people I go out
with aren't "drooling morons" who I gave my name too in one of my e-mails.

This is the last e-mail you and I will exchange.  I thought you were a
decent person, who would adventurly respond to polite etiquette but
you have shown no such talent.  I am done with you, once I senmd this
off I will think of you no more and any e-mails reply you try to send
will be erased, so don't waste your energy, save it on improve upon
your many flaws.

P.S. My I.Q. is 143, can you beat that?

P.S.S. Your idea of humour is nothing more than criticising peoples
flaws.  "But are you powerful enough to point that finger at
yourself." Jodie Foster in Silence of the Lambs.

Be whoever you want to be with another.com
Just click here:
http://another.com/jump.jsp?destDesc=another.com/login.jsp?sig$
--26999311.964647616247.JavaMail.root@www-a23--

So not only is this person very dumb, they also can't read. [sigh]

The Fourth Reply

.. consisted of my flame form, with the appropriate boxes checked off.

Where do these people come from? To paraphrase from John Dillick, is there some agency out there that says, "oops, not enough morons on the Internet" and then assigns some slack-jawed nitwit to fill up my mailbox with gibberish?

Why can't I have my old Internet back? It wasn't any less full of whining losers, but at least the whining losers could be coherent most of the time..