"William X. Walsh" wrote:
> On 13-Jan-2000 Ed Gerck wrote:
> > William:
> >
> > You may have missed in your caustic remark that Chuck
> > was replying to *my* argument -- which he referred to
> > as "this situation*. So, what I included within brackets
> > (following standard procedure for introducing context
> > in quotes) is no more and no less than what I wrote
> > and which is part of his reply -- as you may consult
> > the archives for.
>
> Then seperate it out all together, instead of inserting it in brackets. You
> can include a short summary of the situation your proposed without polluting
> his comments with your editorial.
You seem to be unfamiliar with standard procedures for providing
context withn quotes -- including comments. The procedure can
be however exemplified in good form by my text inserted to provide a
context for "this situation" and "I agree with you" -- both of which
become dangling clauses if the context is NOT provided.
So, rather than being optional, my properly bracketed insert is needed,
as I quoted Chuck:
> "I agree with you that the Registry would be of no help in this situation
> [namely, the facts that the Registrar follows a sales system (Shared
> Registry) that denies tracing the Registry for any customer, denies
> responsibility to the customer from the Registry, denies access to the
> Registry's logs in order to prove customer's rights, keeps the
> property of what is sold with the reseller, gives the customer no
> authority over what was bought, and denies legal recourse as the
> customer may see fit] unless there is evidence of a violation of the
> Registry-Registrar agreement. However, I do not think this is a
> problem." Chuck Gomes.
Cheers,
Ed Gerck
PS:
And, to be clear, they are NOT editorial comments -- they are context
quotes within brackets so that everyone knows that they were not
uttered by Chuck but they provide the context for his words. Otherwise
his words would have no meaning -- both "I agree with you" and
"this situation" are fully undefined.
I explain this not because I want to show who is right or wrong here,
William. I explain this because one of the main problems in DNS debates
is that far too often declarations are taken out of context, exagerated,
etc. The standard way to provide context is what I did. Please either
understand or accept this ;-)
