[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: @Scott Bennett

     On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:34:38 +0200 Ansgar Wiechers <tor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>On 2009-06-30 Scott Bennett wrote:
>>>>> On 2009-06-30 Scott Bennett wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 03:14:29 -0600 Jim McClanahan wrote:
>>>>>>> Ah, I see.  It is the duplicate messages from you that were
>>>>>>> confusing me.
>>>>>>> Why duplicate messages?  As somebody else has pointed out recently,
>>>>>>> the fact that I can post on or-talk means I am subscribed to
>>>>>>> or-talk.
>>>>>> Just standard netiquette for followups to messages posted on mailing
>>>         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> What about it?
>Had you taken an actual look at RFC 1855 you wouldn't have to ask.
     Once again your presumption is mistaken.  I had indeed read that
gloriously opaque stretch of text, though it has been a while since I last
suffered through it.
     In any case, I did not refer to that document, as your latest remark
above tacitly admits, but rather to the generally accepted practice that
had been discovered decades ago to be what worked most satisfactorily by
the participants of countless mailing lists.
     Perhaps this is a language issue.  See, for example, definition 2a at


which covers my usage.  Note further that definition 1a includes both my
usage ("custom") and yours ("law", although RFCs are not law, but rather
proposed reference specifications, at most).  English can be very efficient
and compact, but sometimes at the risk of ambiguity due to the plethora
of meanings that a single word may have.

                                  Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG
* Internet:       bennett at cs.niu.edu                              *
* "A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good  *
* objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments *
* -- a standing army."                                               *
*    -- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790         *