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

Re: @Scott Bennett

     On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 16:06:52 +0200 Ansgar Wiechers <tor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>On 2009-07-01 Scott Bennett wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:34:38 +0200 Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
>>> On 2009-06-30 Scott Bennett wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2009-06-30 Scott Bennett wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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.
>RFC 1855 === standard netiquette
>Like it or not.
>> Perhaps this is a language issue.
>Or perhaps the issue is that the netiquette just doesn't state what you
>said it would.
     You know, I've answered you truthfully several times now.  Your
reaction has been to imply that I've lied to you.  As far as I'm concerned,
that ends the conversation and probably renders pointless any further
conversations between us on any topic.

                                  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         *