[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) writes: | [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gabriel Dos Reis) wrote on 17.07.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: | | > Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > | > | On Sun, 2005-07-17 at 00:05 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: | > | > Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > | > | > | > [...] | > | > | > | > | You make it sound like the standard is crystal clear on this issue, | > | > and | everyone who disagrees with your viewpoint are just slimeballs | > | > trying to | get around the clear wording of the standard. | > | > | > | > I think you're profondly mistaken in your understanding of what I wrote. | > | | > | I read it another few times, and still looks the same to me. | > | | > | "The way I see it is that people who designed and wrote the standard | > | offer their view and interpretation of of they wrote and some people | > | are determined to offer a different interpretation so that they can | > | claim they are well-founded to apply their transformations." | > | | > | | > | IE there are those whose opinion is right because "they wrote the | > | > see, here is where you added the transmutation. | | Well, the more interesting part is the one after "and some". And I agree | that it certainly reads rather insulting and confrontational - in fact, I | can't see how else to interpret it. | | Can't we keep the personal attacks out of these discussions?
There were but, but it looks like you wanted to inject some. That is without me. -- Gaby
