Reg: I find the above comments to be incredibly small-minded and immature, not unlike David's. David ought to have responded solely to Kent's meddlings rather than make an unwarranted and essentially violent attack on George. His gripes with George, whatever they may be, ought to have been dealt on their own terms and in a respectful manner. What's the point in making personal attacks? Please answer me this, David or Reg.
Nice try, but I am the only one of me here. Now, what was it about the above that you felt didn't deserve a straightforward response?
