In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: : M. Warner Losh scripsit: : : > In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : > Rob Seaman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: : > : Actually, this list is not a "discussion" per se. If we simplify the : > : positions - just for the sake of argument here - to "leap second yes" : > : and "leap second no", the reality is that the folks pushing the "leap : > : second no" position have never engaged with this list. There are : > : several doughty people here who happen to have that opinion, but they : > : abide with us mortals outside the time lords' hushed inner sanctum. : > : > What an amaizingly unhelpful and offsensive statement. I have spent : > much time explaining why leap seconds cause real problems in real : > applications, only to be insulted like this. : : I believe you have misread Rob's remark, though I concede that it was : easy to misread. I believe Rob meant that the people who are pushing : "leap seconds no" in *official* channels are not to be found on this list. : That being so, the "leap seconds yes" folks are unable to challenge them : or persuade them otherwise. : : You and I, on the other hand, fall into the "doughty people here" group.
Maybe I did misread them. I've been sick the past three days, so maybe we can chalk it up to that and I'll offer my oppologies for having such a thin skin. Wanrer