> ...and arguing with it, based on assuming charles is disagreeing with > me about reasonable behavior. he isn't. apparently, you didn't take > the time to read what i had written in the first place. or at least > not past the first sentence. > > this is really annoying to me because it tends to be a frequent thing > you do when replying to me on this list: disagreeing with me based on > something that seems like either assuming i don't have any basis for > understanding what i'm talking about, or not reading what i've written > and assuming others are disagreeing with me. the reason this is > annoying is because i have to re-read what i've written, carefully, to > make sure i don't have to retract anything i've said.
for the record, i did not intend to disagree with your statement. i did want to make it clear that i, and several people i've worked with on plan 9 have made a concerted effort to be as compliant with the standard as reasonable; i was making a related by separate point. etc. sorry if you took it this way. sorry for using your statement as a foil. please accept my apology. - erik
