Alan Baker
<http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1036>

Flint
Yes, we see you can't resist creaming your jeans. You're too dense to see I was simply playing with Sandflea

Sandman
You sure played me here:

<kho9fj$31k$1@dont-email.me> "Wrong, Ailin Bellyacher . An embedded "@" makes it a broken email link, moron. "

Flint
That comment was directed to Alan, not you, therefore you were not 'played', sandy... you weren't even addressed as i was awaiting a response from you. Secondly, when inserted into the body of message text it DOES make it a broken email link.

Sandman
And here:

"Just because you fangurlz expect the rest of the world's usenet newsreader software to follow some non-standard MT-Newswatcher convention for creating broken links, don't assume such links are proper."

And my god, did you ever "play" me here:

"An email address link? Teeheeheheee! :)"

Hahaha!!!

Flint
Yes, too bad you're too dimwitted to see the silliness of posting a message ID in a body of text when a simple excerpt of your own cite-blathering would have been more direct.

That said, your doing so was to refute my claim that you failed to provide a cite of authoritative source to back *your* claim.

However, the message you referenced does not contain a grammatically authoritative source, but simply a *dictionary*.

A authoritative grammatical source is what is required for determining a sentence is valid(proper) or not.

(Hint: there are different rules as to what one-word sentences are valid when

Sandman
spoken< as opposed to being >written< or >typed<.)