Re: I have a problem with this:
 

In article <m21vdhaptp.fsf@shermpendley.com>, Sherm Pendley <spamtrap@shermpendley.com> wrote:
>spambait@milmac.com (Doug Miller) writes:
>
>> In article <m2iq6tt73a.fsf@shermpendley.com>, Sherm Pendley
> <spamtrap@shermpendley.com> wrote:
>>>"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> I think we can all understand that sherm-- is just being a jerk.
>>>
>>>No, I'm simply of the opinion that one word isn't enough to warrant a
>>>full delimited .sig block. It's the people who are barking orders and
>>>calling me names that are being rude here.
>>
>> You _already have_ a delimited sig block. The problem is that this text
>>>sherm--
>> should be in it, but isn't.
>
>No, the problem is that you don't understand the difference between fact
>and opinion. "Sherm--" should be in my .sig block IN YOUR OPINION. I
>have my own opinion on that, and I'm just as entitled to it as you are
>to your own.
>
>sherm--
>
That's false. It's not just "my opinion". It's the standard; here, learn
something:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signature_block

Opinions that contravene established standards are not just as valid as those
which conform to the same standards.

Re: I have a problem with this:
 

In article <hsfen6$bt5$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
spambait@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

> In article <m21vdhaptp.fsf@shermpendley.com>, Sherm Pendley
....
> >No, the problem is that you don't understand the difference between fact
> >and opinion. "Sherm--" should be in my .sig block IN YOUR OPINION. I
> >have my own opinion on that, and I'm just as entitled to it as you are
> >to your own.
> >
> >sherm--
> >
> That's false. It's not just "my opinion". It's the standard; here, learn
> something:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signature_block
>

sherm-- knows this. What is this impulse to make like a battering
ram? Can he not have his little ways? He has made it pretty plain
he likes to do this and that should be where it rests, surely?

> Opinions that contravene established standards are not just as valid as those
> which conform to the same standards.

The argument for this as a non-tautolgy being?

--
dorayme