Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 22:06:40 +0100 > Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Have a look at, for example, [1], where Mike already gave you an >> > answer one of the previous times we discussed it. >> > >> I'm aware of the prior discussion. >> Re-read it, and tell me what it breaks, if you can. > > Well, which part of the previous times it's been explained to you didn't > you understand? > No one has ever given me a technical reason. I thought you might have light to shed; clearly not.
Please don't reply to my posts if you don't have any actual information to add; I realise you like long fruitless mail 'discussions', and apparently have lots of time for them, but I don't, and I don't enjoy reading them either. This kind of one-liner with zero content, and no intent but to insult, should simply be binned without sending imo.
