Reply to Response by "Supreme Editorial Dictator" and motion for removal of her "Self-Appointed " position.

Comes now the offended: Matthew Garrett and states the following:

1. Offended parties version, while only only partially accurate, is nonetheless self-serving and he likes it that way!

2. Offended party was asked to "blog", no, more like forced!

3. Offended party did not intentionally give erroneous information-OK, that's not altogether true, either.

4. Offended party is really attracted to the offender; hereafter referred to as, the "offender".

5. Offended party's attraction to the offender makes it impossible for him to win this motion unless he gets to make the decision himself, so at this point he also asks for complete, sole disctetion in rendering a ruling from the "chair of power", which is right in front of this computer.

Therefore, offended party requests that offender be removed from her position as "Supreme Editorial Dictator" because of the unfair advantage perpetuated on the offended party because she's much more attractive than I am AND request for all future "Posts" to be at the sole discretion of the offended party-regardless of accuracy, authenticity or flippenality and that the "Offended" party be given sole discretion in this action.

This motion presented on this 11th day October, 2008. And being solely self-appointed as "Judge, Jury and Executioner, do hereby deem this motion granted in favor of the "Offended" party.

That was easy!

:)

Now, I've just been told that no one will see her post unless I mention to look below this post and read hers. Didn't take long for that order to be violated...