On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 04:34:16PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
>
> Thanks for addressing this. Well, it is in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - instead of answering what
> actually justifies that name, there is only another subset of {look in
> the first proposal|look at Herbert agreeing (vague)|there are others who
> support me so stop wasting my time}.
You're very confused. I don't need a single person supporting me to prove
my package has advantages. The fact that Herbert and others supported me
is just an added value.
The relevant part of my mail was "look in the first proposal". And I'm
still waiting for a link to a part of the discussion that:
1) Claims my pretended advantages are inconsistent.
2) Is not clarified by me in a response.
When you find it (if there is such), I'll simply find what is wrong in that
claim and point it out. All I've seen so far in these messages is a bogus
smoke curtain.
This is what i've been doing all along this thread and I can keep doing it for
weeks, or months.
> > >> Why cannot you invent something new to convince us?
> > >
> > >As I said before I'm unwilling to understand your sarcasm.
>
> Oh Robert... Faster detection of sarcasm demonstrates how good someone
> understands the stuff in question.
That might imply I'm incompetent. Fortunately, I don't have to prove my
competence for you.
--
Robert Millan
"[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the
thing made, and neither in possession nor in his own mastery; wherefore he
gives and hoards not, and is free from care, passing ever on to some new work."
-- J.R.R.T, Ainulindale (Silmarillion)
