Matt,

I want to let you know that I enjoyed your piece. You have a gift for
synthesizing in clear terms. Your dry humor that makes dead thoughts live.
My only complaint is that it was poorly footnoted. That is a technical
problem I know; but I think if corrected, it would add weight to what now
sounds, in places like speculation.

I notice that you have been spilling a lot of ink over a paper that you
didn't write; but that someone thinks you should have written.
 
I have lost count of the layers of irony, balled up inside a metaphysical
editorial argument, over a paper that should have been written, hiding
inside a paper that was written by someone arguing about what he chose not
to write about, with someone who should write the paper, he thinks wasn't
written in the one that was. 

I defer to you on the subject matter of the paper you actually wrote. You
know your stuff and I like your style. 

As for the paper that you didn't write...
I'll read it if it gets written.  

Krimel

Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/

Reply via email to