* Underbar Underbar <underbar_underbar / yahoo.com> [2004-10-31 14:41:47 +0900]:

> Anyway, to the ones who are the real aggitators(you
> know who you are), the ones who like provoking people
> to make them sound even worse, I can certainly make
> ruby-talk a living hell for you if you keep iit up. As
> I said the internet was secure, I can make ruby-talk a
> bloody mess if you don't want to comply. 

Hmm, is this a threat or extortion? Or maybe it more like
'protection' for the neighborhood business.

In any case, it sounds like it could lead to a jailable offense.
I hope you reconsider.

> About my emails I usually send, they are always
> written without emotion. I don't care how you

I assume this email is excluded..

> Sure, I agree with a certain person waiting to send
> email, however I also wouldn't like to be called wrong
> especially when I might be right. As said before,
> attitude has nothign to do with stone cold facts.
> Facts are facts, no matter the person bringing them
> out.

You only had your assumption of the facts. You did not
know the exact URLs, the RBL's used, the time they were 
queried or the voting system in effect. So any conclusions must
have been based pieces of data you had and the rest filled
in with your assumptions. Now your experience may
give a lot of weight to your assessment, but there is so much
missing data that anyone could make a case for reasonable doubt.
I am surprised at your dogmatic statements that you were
100% right on this point.
Surely a logical person like yourself can see the obvious fallacy
in stating anything as being absolute. "There are no absolutes
in science, abosolutely". :)


-- 
Jim Freeze