From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (Shmuel+gen@patriot.net)
Date: Tue May 04 2004 - 18:41:02 CDT
In <4097CB17.3000509@durham.ac.uk>, on 05/04/2004
at 05:55 PM, Nick Boalch <n.g.boalch@durham.ac.uk> said:
>But this WG can't come to agreement about whether "Re: " is 'broken',
>so the text shouldn't mention that, should it?
This WG can't come to agreement on whether we should mention the Re:
hack at all, so by the same reasoning we shouldn't mention it.
>But the paragraph I have redrafted
You not only redrafted it, you removed the material that made it a
compromise and turned it into something partisan.
>(which overall, I agree, achieves a fair compromise)
Then why destroy that characteristic?
>In the original version it reads much like
>an extension of the section detailing its cons,
No, it presented both the pros and the cons. It took about the same
amount of text for each.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)