On 8/1/06, Chad Perrin <perrin / apotheon.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 05:43:30AM +0900, Jacob Fugal wrote:
> > Ok, I've tried my bit at patience. I am certain now that you are being
> > intentionally stubborn and difficult.
>
> You're wrong, and you can go screw yourself if you're going to start
> assuming malicious intent on my part just because you refuse to actually
> discuss the same topic as me.  I've assumed good faith all along: you
> can do the same, or you can talk to someone else, because assuming bad
> faith on my part is a quick way to get >/dev/null attached to your name.

I apologize for my outburst. I was out of line in what I said. I was
assuming good faith for the majority of the conversation as well, I
was simply confused about how we could be coming to such drastically
different conclusions regarding a cited reference. I'd also like to
know how I've been refusing to discuss the same topic?

Jacob Fugal