This is a very common tactic of yours, claiming because Tom hasn't
said something about a behavior that he is condoning it. In the first
place this is an invalid argument. In the second place, why do you
want Tom to be the arbiter of other people's behavior on this list?
The proper person to complain to is the person who did it, so if you
want to properly address your complaint to the right person, why
don't you search through the list archives, find out who did it, and
complain directly to them, with a link to the offending post? That
is the right thing to do, even if it is a little late.
It really is bad form to claim an offense without backing it up.
In other words, I am finding this line of argument tiresome, I don't
think
that it is making any points for you, and I'd be really happy if you
would
move to something more substantive.
If it were true it would be yet another tempest in a tea pot,
something
of no consequence. Is somebody writing M$ instead of MS the best
diversion from reality that our dear WFBs can come up with?
Bottom line is that they can't continue their good-because-its-cheap
propaganda campaign any further so they have to change the subject
with
feigned outrage.
Silly boys.
I want to confirm that you are saying it is OK to alter quoted text.
I am not talking about someone writing "M$", I am talking about
someone who
deliberately changed text when he quoted it. This is *not* the same as
"somebody writing M$ instead of MS".
In your opinion, this is OK. No crap about Windows, WFBs, reality, or
propaganda. Is it OK to alter text that you are quoting, or not?
Here is a
list of all possible answers to the question:
1. Yes, it is OK to alter quoted text.
2. No, it is never OK to alter quoted text.
*************************************************************************
** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy **
** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ **
*************************************************************************
