On 2019-10-07, Reco <recovery...@enotuniq.net> wrote: > > 1) Call me old-fashioned, but posters' personalities should not matter > here, at this list.
I don't see what is old-fashioned about your opinion here. I would think it were the gentilities of polite discourse that have become outmoded (as demonstrated finely by the OP), and your view that good breeding is somehow immaterial the new-fangled thing. > Whenever a OP is a teen, old person, dog or AI (there are unconfirmed > sightings of last two posting here ;) is hardly relevant to the problem. > The language OP is using could definitely use some improvement indeed, > but discussing OP's personality just because of that is as low as it > gets. A person's nature when confronting a problem is entirely relevant to its solution. A puerile nature blames the stone, and eventually the landscape architects, when stubbing his toe in the rock garden. If your objective wisdom is to assert that this specific stone has no legitimate place in this particular garden and should be removed, well, that may be true. File the appropriate wish-list bug report with the architects, who have strived to create an ensemble effect and might not wish to go without certain elements. But as the stone in question figures on the map handed out to everyone before entry, it seems to me it could've been avoided one way or another by any astute visitor. -- "There are no foreign lands. It is the traveler only who is foreign." -- Robert Louis Stevenson
