On 5/2/06, A. Pagaltzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-02 22:00]: > I've been saying the same thing for weeks. I suppose it's par > for the course to handwave about them being "strictly > advisory", supply circular definitions for the feature in the > first place, claim no one will be implementing the feature, > then claim that someone is, etc, etc. Yes. I thought those defences were very silly as well.
Not only were they "very silly", they're offensive. It's as if any truthy sounding answer is enough to brush someone off. If it's a WG draft, and not individual draft, you have to repeat the truthy-sounding answers every day for months on end. Also, it pays to scream bloody murder when someone gets upset with you. Also, it pays to make lots of irrelevant changes and claim to be responding to feedback. Of course, our chairs have made it abundantly clear that this sort of offensive, dishonest, repugnant delay tactic is perfectly acceptable, and must be treated with respect. Well, I won't use a four-letter word this time, but let's just say I'd rather deal with Microsoft than the IETF at this point.
> You know, stuffing an idea because of who proposed it. No, not just because of who proposed it, but also because of how.
Sorry Aristotle, you're not qualified to make that statement. I've proposed things every which way, so I know the form doesn't matter. -- Robert Sayre "I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time."
