Branden Robinson writes ("Re: Latest `disputes' draft (#3)"):
> This draft appears to have addressed almost none of the issues I raised
> in my feedback to you; not even ones that you explicitly said you'd fix.Well, perhaps I've addressed them differently to how you were expecting. I think that everything that anyone said to me has either been acted on in a way I thought they'd like, or responded to to explain why I disagree. But of course, in anything like this I'm going to make mistakes. So I appreciate you helping me out by reminding me of things I said I'd do but apparently haven't, or of things I seem just to have missed. Taking your points in slightly different order to in your mail: > the language about how people should write documentation that > doesn't exist to support their arbirtary decision is absent despite the > fact that you implied that this language was present in your latest > draft, which you hadn't mailed out yet at the time. I think you're mistaken. Take a look at my draft #3, section 4, 3rd paragraph. Is this not the kind of thing you wanted ? > Furthermore, it does not appear that you have addressed Adam Heath's or > Manoj Srivastava's concerns, either. I replied to Manoj in some detail. > I suggest that it's prudent for a "joint recommendation" to represent > the determinations of more than one individual if one wishes it to gain > traction. Absolutely. That's why I'm discussing it here. I've had a handful of pretty positive comments by private mail (ha ha the lurkers support me in email), which I'm finding encouraging. > E.g., "flamage" is still misspelled (and the word is still being used), I'm afraid you haven't convinced me about that, and the other stylistic questions. I also don't think they're worth arguing about, so I'm just going to do what I feel like. If you think I'm being arrogant why not organise a campaign to get me to `fix' my idiolect. Thanks, Ian. PS: I do appreciate your input, despite your (and probably my own!) frosty tone ...
