From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (Shmuel+gen@patriot.net)
Date: Thu Nov 07 2002 - 11:59:38 CST
In <Pine.LNX.4.44.0211061024040.4183-100000@localhost.localdomain>, on
11/06/2002
at 11:31 AM, John Stanley <stanley@peak.org> said:
>was exactly the way you wrote it.
Which had to do with what needed to be not, not with how it was to be
done.
>Ok. Trot out the words I attributed to you
You attrributed to me the claim that I insisted that the draft not be
passed if it didn't do things my way.
>you've repeatedly denied the words framed with ">" are yours.
Another lie. I denied that the positition you attributed to me was
mine.
>So stop whining about how I allegedly attributed those words to you
>and calling me a liar.
Stop lyuing and I'll stop calling you a liar.
>If you didn't mean to send the message
I meant to send the message; the position that you attributed to me
was not in that message.
>What explicitely is incorrect in my interpretation of your
>statement?
What is incorrect is that I said nothing about how things were done,
only about what needed to be done.
>You've not bothered to say.
Another lie; I've pointed out repeatedly that the issue is what, not
how.
Now, I have some opinions as to the best way to encode Unicode. And
there have been long discussions of what the benefits and problems are
with each. But I have never said that the draft should not be adopted
if the option selected isn't the one that I prefered.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2
Team OS/2
Team PL/I
-----------------------------------------------------------