On 5/2/06, A. Pagaltzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-02 19:45]: > A. Pagaltzis wrote: > > Such as? > > Aristotle, I appreciate the intention, but please don't bother. > It is painfully clear that Robert has no intention of adding > anything of any real value to the discussion. I know. However, I despise politics and old boys clubs and prefer the merit of my decisions to be self-evident, so I'm avoiding any assumption of any axe to grind behind his behaviour, to see what should be addressed and how. If there is any meritorious concern in his objections, I'd like it addressed, regardless (despite?) of who brought them up and how.
I've been saying the same thing for weeks. I suppose it's par for the course to handwave about them being "strictly advisory", supply circular definitions for the feature in the first place, claim no one will be implementing the feature, then claim that someone is, etc, etc. You know, stuffing an idea because of who proposed it. You can go read the atom-protocol archives if you want more evidence of that. The general pattern seems to be to sanctimoniously scold me for making the suggestion, and then to adopt it with cosmetic changes. -- Robert Sayre "I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time."
