Michael, I don't know how to respond to your post. My previous remarks were intended to be taken as observations rather than confrontations. My major point was:
> I think it's best to be in a medium where your heart is already at. If you have not understood the implications of those words at this point then so be it. Perhaps they will have meaning for you in the future. I'd like to say that I sincerely appreciate those list members who took the time to reply with very patient and detailed interpretations/explanations to the twists and turns this thread has taken. Philip On Saturday, April 27, 2002, at 06:43 AM, Michael Edwards wrote: > Michael Edwards. > [Philip Aker:] >> If you were inclined in the area I suggest that you would have >> noticed how most people format their email and quote replies >> on this list and >> adjusted your posts to the norm accordingly. >> [My respone:] >> I don't know what you mean by this. > [Philip:] > Patrick Hubers has answered this question more than adequately. > [Myself:] > I'm sorry, but he hasn't answered adequately in the > least - as I said > before. I still do not know what (if anything) I'm doing wrong. > I wrote a longish posting replying to Patrick's message, > explaining this in > detail, but desisted from sending it after reading Keith's > attempt to cool this > down. Do you want me to send it in after all? I think it will > irritate you, > though, judging by your demonstrated attitude on this trivial issue. > Patrick mentioned stating to whom I'm replying at the top; > I do that, in my > attribution of quoted material. He mentioned marking quotes with the > greater-than sign or the vertical bar; I do that - or my > software does. (For > certain people I reply to, it seems not to do it, for reasons I > don't know. > This is not unique to me. Are you going to hold that against > me? Please just > *say* that's the problem, if that's what's bugging you, and > I'll put them in > manually, line by line, to make you happy.) > They are the only specific things Patrick said. He made > other vague > references to "established style", but gave no indication of > how I departed from > that. I went back and re-read his post, just to make sure I > hadn't missed > something. I see no way my posts offend against anything he said. >> [Myself:] >> Perhaps you'd like to explain what you mean, rather than >> hint at it obliquely. > [Philip:] > I think you are illustrating my point because my remarks seem > to have been > understood by other list members. Even ones from Europe whose > native language is > not English. > [Myself:] > I don't see how my not knowing what you're talking about > illustrates > anything at all. I don't claim to know what other list members > understand, > beyond what they clearly state for themselves. I don't see > what one's native > language has got to do with it, and I think you're using this > to have a dig at > me for some unknown reason. > If you're going to criticize me, and I indicate I don't > know what you're > referring to, you should have the courtesy to explain it to > me. Neither you nor > Patrick have chosen to do that so far. What other list members > do or don't > understand is beside the point. > I don't really enjoy arguing like this, and want to get on > with list > members. Could you please just tell me exactly what the > problem is, instead of > hedging about, and we can then move on to other topics? > Regards, > Michael Edwards. Philip Aker http://www.aker.ca _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
