[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > That is something of an arrogant stance to assume that you are using language > correctly and everyone else is misinterpreting it.
You're putting words into my mouth. I am not claiming my definition is necessarily better than anyone else's. It just happens to be the most natural one *to me*, which explains my posts, and I have acknowledged that others may use different language, and have tried to *clarify* how my posts should be read. That's all. Of course, I am awaiting your *private* mail with bated breath that will enable me to find *the* authoritative lexicon defining the term "locked frame". Private, because this semantic nitpicking is polluting the list. > A simple clarification without the condescension will suffice. I *have* clarified it. Indeed, it appears to be one of the clarifications that prompted your response - which, by the way, feels very condescendent to me (though I'm sure you may see it differently). A simple clarification without the condescension will suffice ;). -- Alexis Cousein [EMAIL PROTECTED] Senior Systems Engineer/Solutions Architect SGI/Silicon Graphics -- <If I have seen further, it is by standing on reference manuals> _______________________________________________ Tango-L mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/tango-l
