I've part of the reply to this Off-Llist, since it does not relate to swf-tools!
As to the code, I'm sorry you did quite get was I was attempting to demontrate, in my own clumsy way. I'll have to try again, becasue to some extent I think we are actiually talking at cross-purposes. Watch this space... ;o) Regards, Chris. 2009/11/7 Pablo Rodríguez <[email protected]>: > Chris, > > Chris Pugh wrote: >> Pablo, >> >> 2009/11/1 Pablo Rodríguez <[email protected]>: >>> Chris Pugh wrote: >>>> I didn't say you had done anything 'wrong' in particular. Simply >>>> guilty of having a very tic moment! ;o) >>> ic' = tongue in che >>> Chris, I apologize for being rude in my previous reply (I'm afraid I >>> don't understand what a 'tic moment' might be). >> >> Thank you. However, you have nothing to apologise for. In fact, it was >> I who was apologising to you. >> >> tic = tongue in cheek >> tfic = tongue firmly in cheek >> >> are two somethings I am prone to ( and also guilty of ) more than I care to >> mention. tic comments often get misunderstood, even with the emoticons, >> i.e. ;o), in place, and thus win me a lot of 'enemies'! ;o) >> >> Anyway, >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tongue-in-cheek >> >> for a somewhat lengthy explanation! > > Sorry for the late reply. > > Thanks for the explanation, I didn't know about tongue-in-cheek. > >>>> That said, we see things quite differently, as do most programmers ( >>>> not that I consider myself to be one that is )). Thus I'm glad to see you >>>> have finally lost that excess code! >> >>> All my questions to the list are out of my ignorance. I ask because I >>> don't know. I realized my error after having asked to the list (and >>> thinking what could have gone wrong). At first, I thought that the issue >>> was a different one that I had described before. >> >> If I were to say 'Ignorance is not one of your best assets, Pablo' I'd be >> being >> subtly 'tfic' again! Maybe you will understand me this time? > > I understand that your comment is meant somehow ironically. My mistake > was to take those comments seriously. > > Following in next replies, > > > Pablo > > >
