Travis - of all people a law professor should be able to tell the difference between an attack on an idea (the WTC story) and an attack on a person (Ad Hominem Abusive).

The WTC story Mike posts is false - logic says it is. The facts say it is. 24K gold on a $1 chip? Come on now - think about it.

They got the guy's name wrong, so what confidence could you have in the rest of the story?

Am I attacking the story as false? Yes I am because I know it to be so. Am I attacking Mike? No, of course not because my few dealings with him showed he is a totally honest and straight shooting seller. He is just misinformed in this instance.

Now answer me this - do you know for a fact that Mike F's story is correct? No you don't and you couldn't possibly know that.

OK - do you know that my version is 100% acccurate. Of course not - for the same reason.

Now the real bedrock question - have you bothered to read my well-researched version? The link is below for your convenience.

If the answer is no, you have to ask yourself, why the closed mind? Would you rather belive a falsehood rather than admit I'm right?

If you have read my version, you must realize that there are holes in Mike's story can not be explained. Also take note Mike doesn't bother to try and explain them either.

As far as blocking IP addresses, that would wind up being a Herculean task for Greg as there are more anonymous proxy servers out there than he could ever filter. More than 10 of him could ever filter. There are tools that have over 200 proxy server IPs available every day. And he eventually would wind up blocking some "legitimate" posters. It would be a very messy, time consuming and fruitless undertaking.

He could go to the username/password scheme I initially suggested - but alas he's rejected that option as "not an option."

Sorry professor - you'll just have to apply some of that logic lawyers are so fond of and seperate an attack on an idea and an attack on a person.