>At 02:59 AM 2/22/99 -0800, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>>That's debatable. Their current level of funding leads one to think
>>otherwise. It is arguable that, if they had the support then they'd have
>
>
>Their current level of funding? A brand new organization that was formed
>quite recently and with no meaningful infusion of funds and with too much
>work to do, so that fund-raising must be only a part of a part-time effort?
>
>You think their current lack of solid funding is a positive indication of
>lack of support?
Boy,
That's the old Dave I've grown to know and love. ...split a message into two halves and chose which half to respond to, out of context. The defining clause, to the paragraph you spoke to was thus;
- "Personally, I think it is caused by their business
structure.Non-profits *always* are short of funds. That's not real good
for stability."
>As I say, it's just amazing what folks are willing to use as a supposed
>basis for criticisms, thereby suggesting that they are more interested in
>doing the criticism than that it have substance.
Yes it is, isn't it? But then, you have provided adequate example of the re-definition of substance, so what does it matter? You have consistently been shown to ignore the substance yourself. In this case, your favorite topic "Internet stability". Does it make you uncomfortable that the point was on-target? This is a lot like ordering a tofu-burger and then asking "where is the beef?"
I think I am going to quit answering your messages.
___________________________________________________
Roeland M.J. Meyer -
e-mail:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Internet
phone:
hawk.lvrmr.mhsc.com
Personal web
pages:
http://staff.mhsc.com/~rmeyer
Company
web-site:
http://www.mhsc.com
___________________________________________________
KISS ... gotta love it!
