Michael Lewis said: >Can't you just be right and report it to CTM without beating people into >the ground and submission? You got your verification of this particular >sequence doing something strange. I did?
>Get over yourself and let the list return to normal. I will. >I've been reading (and skipping) this thread for weeks. Eh, it's a 4 days old thread. >It's time to move on. They don't have to answer to you, no matter what >you think of their rationale, intelligence, or whatever. No, they don't have to. But it is of course not becoming to say a contradiction, either isn't one or that it is indeed useful, while withholding what is actually useful. But its illogical of me to expect people to disagree on my terms. I can only hope people are willing to put forward their rationale and when I try to put forward mine I'll have to see it as just what I want to do, not expect others to do it just because of this. >It's probably as simple as the fact they've never had or rarely had the >problem you speak of -- I know I never have in all these years -- because >the sequence you list isn't as common as you think it is. A problem? Yes. >Big enough for me to have 500 bazillion messages from Mikael in a day? >No. (Yes, I'm using hyperbole now...) No, also I was thinking it was a small bug, only that it was inconsistent behaviour. Should have filed and be done with it. My apologies. Please further debacles offlist. PM 5.2.1 | OS X 10.3.9 | Powerbook G4/400 | 768MB RAM | 30GB HD
