Um, I wasn't disagreeing, just clarifying.
I don't think this particular discussion is at the point. I do think
that the issues are mostly on the table. Not 100% though. Also a lot
of fun invective, which doesn't bother me (especially when posted by
well-known donkey fellatiors) but may inhibit
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 05:30:28AM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> > Just because I'd be fine with it (until convinced otherwise by
> > cogent arguments as removability being an imperfect but acceptable
> > solution, much like, oh, the clause under which TeX slips through)
> > doesn't mean that t
> Just because I'd be fine with it (until convinced otherwise by
> cogent arguments as removability being an imperfect but acceptable
> solution, much like, oh, the clause under which TeX slips through)
> doesn't mean that the majority opinion of d-l is; and if I'm in a
> significant minority, ther
3 matches
Mail list logo
