From: John Stanley (stanley@peak.org)
Date: Wed Nov 06 2002 - 13:31:02 CST
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (Shmuel+gen@patriot.net):
>>There is no other way of reading the clause "You didn't quote me;"
>>than as a claim that I didn't quote you.
>The obvious way to read it ...
was exactly the way you wrote it. God, Shmuel, if you don't write what
you mean, why do you expect others to figure it out for you?
>>I did not once
>>attribute to you words that you yourself did not write. "What you
>>said" appeared as you said it, sans changes.
>ROTF,LMAO!
Ok. Trot out the words I attributed to you that you did not write. It
should be easy, right?
>You not only attributed words to me ("You've neatly avoided
>discussing why you think it isn't worth doing unless it is done the
>way you want") ...
I didn't attribute those words to you. Try again.
>Another lie: I have never denied that the words that you framed with
>leading ">" were mine.
"You didn't quote me". In this forum, the leading ">" are quotes. If they
don't mark quotes from you, then they cannot be your words. So, indeed,
you've repeatedly denied the words framed with ">" are yours.
>Yes, we know that John Stanley wrote "you think it isn't worth doing
>unless it is done the way you want".
So stop whining about how I allegedly attributed those words to you and
calling me a liar.
>No, I'm unhappy because you lie about peoples positions instead of
>rebutting what they actually wrote.
I'll point out something you apparently missed. What I did was ask you a
simple question, based on an obvious interpretation of what you said.
You could have answered the question, but you chose to whine about being
asked.
If you didn't mean to send the message that this draft is not worth the
effort unless it contains the specific item you want ("I see no point to
issuing a replacement to RFC 1036 that does not provide for Unicode in
newsgroup names.") then you need to refine your statement.
What explicitely is incorrect in my interpretation of your statement? Do
you think there is some value to this draft if it isn't "issued as a
replacement"? What value would that be? Is "years of discussion leading to
a lack of consensus about lots of things" something of value? Is "provide
for Unicode in newsgroup names" not a specific thing you want? Am I
incorrect in reading your statement as support for Unicode in newsgroup
names? Just what is it that is wrong? You've not bothered to say.
>[1] Go ahead, be pedantic and say that by quoting your lie I was
>writing the words in your lie.
Go ahead and tell me again that I did not quote you when the facts so
clearly prove otherwise.