From: John Stanley (stanley@peak.org)
Date: Fri Nov 08 2002 - 12:52:25 CST
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (Shmuel+gen@patriot.net):
>>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.
That's patetly false on two different levels. First of all, I attributed
to you exactly the words you said. That's what "verbatim quote" means. It
has everything to do with those pesky ">". Second, I didn't say you
insisted on anything, I asked you a question to see if what you appeared
to be saying was really what you meant to be saying. You flipped out.
Instead of answering the question and being done with it, you started
accusing me of misquoting you.
Now, I challenged you to trot out the words I attributed to you, and you
failed. Are you ready to admit you lied about that accusation?
>What is incorrect is that I said nothing about how things were done,
>only about what needed to be done.
You're a damn moron. Nobody is talking about how things ARE being done,
just your statement that you see no point in replacing 1036 unless the
replacement contains a certain item you want. That's what you think needs
"to be done", isn't it?
If your whole complaint is that you didn't understand that the concept of
"replacing" 1036 is something that needs to be done and not something
already accomplished, I'm sorry for you.
>Another lie; I've pointed out repeatedly that the issue is what, not
>how.
The issue is what "what"? The question I asked was if you really felt that
the rest of the stuff in the draft was worthless without the one thing you
wanted. That is what you said. Now it seems to be that you think I said
you were talking about how things were being done and not how the draft
will define them to be. Well, that's crap. Try again.
>Now, I have some opinions as to the best way to encode Unicode.
How nice for you. But without Unicode, you see no point, right? That's
what you said.
>But I have never said that the draft should not be adopted
>if the option selected isn't the one that I prefered.
I said that you see no value in adopting it -- as you put it, you "see no
point". Maybe you think it should be adopted even if the rest of the stuff
is worthless without the thing you want in it. I asked you if you felt the
rest of the stuff really wasn't worth it. I'm still waiting an answer for
that.
There, do you understand now? Can you answer the question without calling
the person asking it a liar? I know the answers to both questions, but
maybe you'll surprise me this time.