From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (Shmuel+gen@patriot.net)
Date: Sun Aug 01 2004 - 15:24:08 CDT
In <410D42BA.1020908@erols.com>, on 08/01/2004
at 03:21 PM, Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com> said:
>I know very well what it means.
Obviously not.
>To recap the recent conversation (since you seem to have felt it
>necessary to snip everything so that you could assert a claim of
>non-sequitur):
Wrong again, but just to humor you I will include things that are in
fact irrelevant to the claim. However, I note that *YOU* have snipped
out precisely the text that *IS* relevant.
Therefore failing to provide for so-called MIME parameters in
non-MIME fields does not preclude adding the syntax in a future
RFC.
>Shmuel:
>>Failure to provide syntax is not the same as precluding the syntax in
>> a subsequent RFC.
>Bruce:
>>failing to provide for so-called MIME parameters in
>>>non-MIME fields does not preclude adding the syntax in a future RFC.
>There's no non-sequitur there.
There is, of course. That's presumably why you removed the word
"therefor" from the quote, in order to mislead others as to what you
had actually written. Your claim *DOES NOT FOLLOW* from what I wrote,
so it is a non sequitor. It would be a non sequitor even were your
claim to be correct.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2 <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)