From: John Stanley (stanley@peak.org)
Date: Mon Aug 02 2004 - 19:45:43 CDT
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (Shmuel+gen@patriot.net):
>No, John, as usual you are doing what you accuse others of, and
>attempting to put words in my mouth.
I asked you a simple question, based on a statment you made. If you don't
want to clarify your patently silly remark, feel free not to, but don't
whine about words being put in your mouth when I'm asking you for
clarification.
>Had I meant that then I would have written it.
Here's what you wrote, in its entirety:
]And part 1 would not be posted were it not for the existence of part
]2.
That seems to be saying that "part 1" would not be posted if part 2 did
not exist. So, you did, indeed, write it, and I did, indeed, ask you if
that is what you really meant. No words put in your mouth, just a chance
for you to clarify your position. And I'll note that I was not the only
person who thought you meant what you wrote and not what you now claim you
meant.
>What I am REALLY saying is that when someone splits a
>long FAQ into multiple parts, none of the parts has a preferred
>status. What prompts each part is the entire FAQ.
Then you should have written that, and you could have simply said that is
what you intended instead of jumping down my throat for asking.
And the point you are making is pretty subjective. It is trivial to say
that part 1 prompted part 2 and thus it would fall into the 'prompted by'
definition, and nobody would die. And yet, there could be a pretty simple
definition that matches current practice and RFC1036.