From: John Stanley (stanley@peak.org)
Date: Wed Apr 14 2004 - 12:03:17 CDT
Charles Lindsey (chl@clerew.man.ac.uk):
> As you are well aware, there has been an outage.
In the email listserver. Not on the website where the latest versions of
the draft are kept.
Your email was dated more than ten days ago. The publicly available copies
of both drafts have not been updated for months. Is your version of "about
to" more or less than ten days? It appears "never" is a better
approximation.
Pretending that people who want to join this discussion are supposed to go
back months and sift through every email you sent to the list so they can
update the publicly available drafts to the "current discussion level" is
just ridiculous. Pretending that we can even GUESS at what your current
copy looks like is just ridiculous.
It's not as if you don't have to keep a copy up-to-date -- that's your
job as editor. Why you repeatedly refuse to keep the public copy up to
date is a mystery. I can only assume you enjoy being able to tell people
"that's not what the current version says".
>My latest text has now been published, and two people have responded to
>it.
You've distributed an extract from one small section, but not provided an
updated copy of the draft for months. You know this is an issue.
>Can you live with it? Yes or No?
As you are well aware, I saw your extract and commented on it. Your
extract contains direct references to another section which you have not
published for months. I see no response from you regarding it, you just
keep demanding I answer the same question I've already answered about the
same text.
I'll try spelling it out for you once more. ANY sentence in the draft that
says the reading agents NEED anything in the unstructured subject header
in order to thread articles is unacceptable because it is a lie. Any
sentence that implies that reading agents can determine "back references"
in the unstructured subject header is unacceptable, because that too is a
lie.
I've provided more than one alternative version of the text that says
exactly what current practice is, so I know the correct paragraphs can be
written. You just won't let go.
>I do
>not recall that you objected to it on that occasion, and I somehow don't
>think you imagine that you are bound by it now.
I am not the one trying to redefine a header, Charles. And I am not the
one who keeps making unilateral changes to something that has been through
multiple last calls. And who now questions MY right to discuss a section
that has been changed after last call because I didn't complain about the
changes prior to last call.
The comment I made was directed specifically at Henry, who DID question
my right to comment on a section that had passed last call, who now
suggests changing something that has also passed last call. Goose, gander,
meet sauce.