As so stated by Mr Gilmore, Ed's typo was obvious. As to getting a reply, I have my doubts. Ed's comments about/to Darren have often been rude, or as Elardus more politely put it:
I even don't know how they will reply to you in a friendly way... ;-) Sorry Ed, but you need to lighten up or think about what/how you write. The SysProgs of yore have long dropped their 'angry young men' stance. This Forum is thankfully a witness to that. ALH -----Original Message----- From: John Gilmore <[email protected]> To: IBM-MAIN <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 11:17 Subject: Re: Is the oner of IBM-Main still with us? Here the onus probandi clearly falls on those who assert that the owner of IBM-MAIN is defunct. The only evidence for this notion yet adduced is that he has not replied to an email message, and I do not find it persuasive: There are days when I omit to reply to many such. In passing, the [Latin] plural of 'onus' is 'onera', from which the [English] adjective 'onerous' is derived in the usual way. [Latin dropouts are of course free to use 'onuses' instead if they judge it felicitous.] The form 'oner' has no standing. John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
