* Dave Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [05/16/2001 11:25]:
>
> I recently received the following email from someone whose name I
> have snipped.
>
> > * Dave Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [05/16/2001 08:11]:
> > >
> > > Ok, this is basically a bunch of "me too!"s.
> >
> > Keep the snide comments to yourself. Thanks.
>
> This was regarding a reply I had made to one of Nathan Wiger's
> posts in the "Re: Exegesis2 and the "is" keyword" thread.
>
> This is a case of miscommunication; the "bunch of me too"s was
> referring to what _I_ was writing...that is, I was saying that the
> majority of my email consisted of agreeing with what Nathan had written,
> which I thought was very well constructed and well thought
> out. Obviously, I was not clear enough, for which I apologize.
Dave-
No reason to publicly apologize, this was as much a result of my
misreading your statements as anything else. I thought we had resolved
this quite satisfactorily offline, but I sincerely appreciate the public
apology.
I must admit I've gotten a little on-edge reading this list lately. It
seems many would like to turn many issues into flamewars. I hope that
people begin to abide by Nat's requests to tone things down a little.
I think a lot of people are unsure and afraid of where Perl's going,
which is understandable in a way because we're in the middle of doing
some big redesign, but it's not a reason to overreact and assume
everyone else on the list is out to destroy Perl.
I do agree, however, that we need to make sure people can still program
in a subset of Perl effectively.
-Nate
