dave,
dmb says: > I think that's exactly right and well said too. This sort of excellent > performance seriously undermines John's complaints about the failure of > others to plainly articulate the MOQ. I honestly can't think of any real complaint I've issued about other's failures to articulate the MoQ. The only dissatisfaction I've experienced is that others construe my own articulation in such negative terms as undermining the MoQ or fighting against it. I sincerely believe the diversity of articulations to be a *good* thing, dave. And when has Dan ever been anything less than 100% intelligible? I honestly > cannot recall a single case. I agree. Dan is eminently intelligible. > Andre is as plain and clear as any native speaker and he always dishes up > the most relevant quotes too. > Long story, short. I just don't buy that kind of criticism. There's no > shortage of good explanations around here and your pithy rebuttal to John is > fresh evidence of that. > > > Well, a person can be plain and clear, yet plainly and clearly wrong, as Andre was with his aspersion that William James despised J. Royce, but we won't go into that now. And personally, it's no mystery to me why Andre is as clear as a native speaker... 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/md/archives.html
