In <blu110-w23289824e162a5733393dfc6...@phx.gbl>, on 10/29/2009
at 10:09 PM, john gilmore <john_w_gilm...@msn.com> said:
>Jonathan Swift's original horrific--albeit satirical--modest proposal of
>1729 evoked untoward responses too.
Indeed. And, yes, I deliberately[1] chose my subject as a humorous
reference to Swift.
>This time the OP, who is certainly capable of mixed, not wholly serious
>intentions, may well be enjoying the intemperate responses to his
>proposal as much as Swift did the outrage that his provoked.
Well, in Swift's case the key misunderstanding was that it was satire; in
my case, that I was trying to preserve compatibility with existing code.
The various proposals that I have seen over the past decade destroyed
compatibility.
[1] The "C&C" in my headers means put down your coffee and your cats
before reading ;-)
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
