On 2008-03-28, dorayme <doraymeRidThis [at] optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> In article <slrnfuqoct.1fs.spamspam [at] bowser.marioworld>,
> Ben C <spamspam [at] spam.eggs> wrote:
>
>> What I don't know about IE's behaviour would fill a book.
>
> This statement shows not only admirable humility but knowledge in
> itself.

No humility was intended, I was just insulting IE as usual.

In article <slrnfus4r8.hgt.spamspam [at] bowser.marioworld>,
Ben C <spamspam [at] spam.eggs> wrote:

> On 2008-03-28, dorayme <doraymeRidThis [at] optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > In article <slrnfuqoct.1fs.spamspam [at] bowser.marioworld>,
> > Ben C <spamspam [at] spam.eggs> wrote:
> >
> >> What I don't know about IE's behaviour would fill a book.
> >
> > This statement shows not only admirable humility but knowledge in
> > itself.
>
> No humility was intended, I was just insulting IE as usual.

Perhaps you missed that I went on to add the insult (in the bit you
snipped).

In any case, what you intended is irrelevant. I say you were humble and
good. If my authority alone is not enough, consider this: had you
intended any such thing, it would have shown, ipso facto, that you were
neither being humble, truly humble nor admirably humble.

<g>

--
dorayme