On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 06:06:35PM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote: > On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 01:51:24AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > While "Don't respond to Craig Sanders" is usually a good idea, I feel > > compelled to point out to anybody casually watching that the parent > > post is pure FUD; read it with a critical mind and you should find the > > flaws. The first paragraph, for example, is entirely delusional. > > Well I, for one, look forward to your pointing out those delusions one > by one. Otherwise I'm compelled to believe that Craig is largely correct.
His very first paragraph ascribes a belief to every last one of the non-free removal supports which I believe few, if any, have ever actually held. I have already pointed out that. How do you expect the message to be taken seriously after that?
