Kent. My email to you was private. Throwing a line or two here out of context is counter productive. First of all, you, indeed did not disprove what I said. It couldn't be more clear that I did not threaten to remove all of your posts. Here is the bit of the email that I originally sent you -

"My biggest complaint with you right now (and actually has been for a while) Kent is the fact that you've openly said that you want to play provocateur on this board and stir things up. This board was never meant to be your little experiment. If you continue on this path - and it'll be my discretion - I'll delete your posts."

This email was a direct response to you posting the bit about the Arnold OUI magazine coupled with the fact that you've publicly stated that you post sometimes simply to provoke people to argue. You can twist and turn this whatever way you want - but you know this message dealt squarely with posts that I would deem were posted simply to incite a negative response. This in no way proves that I was threatening to delete all of your posts from this board. Kent, you actually used quotes around those words which is a false representation of what I posted to you in a private email.

I emailed you so we could come to terms with this situation. Your post on this board claiming some type of victory - and worse, a concession that I indeed threatened you - are beyond me to figure out.

As for mentioning what I said about Pat - that is truly poor form. I gave you specific instances where posts were deleted - so to simply toss off a one liner is, again, counter productive. I clearly stated in the email to you my thoughts on the subject of deleting posts.

Really, Kent - I chose the private email route to avoid this display of aggravation I am feeling over this situation. This is now to a point where I am at wits end. You have somehow twisted this into a situation where you are a victim...and I just don't get it.

Someone please tell me why this is worth it.

Dan