Eric,

I hate to break it to you, but I don't read most of the messages that
you write, nor do I find myself bound to read all your posts and all
related posts before responding to a comment on one of my messages.

Often your messages assume that I have read every message in a thread,
but usually I skip the banter between you and Kevin, or between you
and John.

On the other hand, please feel free not to read all my messages
either.

Eric Takabayashi <etakajp@yahoo.co.jp> wrote in message news:<3F09882D.D696BAEF@yahoo.co.jp>...

> Ernest Schaal wrote:
> 
> > > Go back and learn for yourself who brought up Bush and Americans, to
> > > see who I was responding to before you jumped back in.
> >
> > Why should I, when you can provide me with that information easily?
> 
> It was Norman.
> 
> > After all, Eric, the world does not revolve around you and the world
> > does not have to obey your every command.
> 
> So why should I have to listen to you if you don't want to do it yourself?
> 
> > You can easily give me the information you referred to, if you thought it
> > was important.
> 
> It is you who thinks it is important who said what, not I.
> 
> > The fact that you can't be bothered to do it tells me that
> > either the information is not there or that it isn't important even for you
> > to be bothered with.
> 
> It is not important, and I don't know why you think it is.
> 
> > If it is too unimportant for you to include in your
> > message, why should I waste my time looking it up?
> 
> Because it is you who cares.
> 
> > If you have any views on the topic you can state them, otherwise I consider
> > your messages waste of bandwidth.
> 
> Don't read, lawyer with the valuable time. No one asked you back at all.