Dave CROCKER wrote:
>
> Eliot Lear wrote:
>> On 5/8/09 7:07 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>>> I hadn't noticed anyone suggesting doing anything that cycled the
>>> specification
>>> at Proposed. (The requirement placed on the Errata is different than we're
>>> discussing for the -bis effort.)
>>>
>>> Have you heard otherwise?
>> That would be me. Refer to recent messages, please. The standard,
>> IMHO, is not sufficiently baked, given the recent change.
>
>
> Eliot,
>
> I asked Jim a question. He answered it. His answers was completely
> different
> from yours, yet you were purporting to (again) answer on his behalf.
>
> So while of course it's fine for you to have and express your own opinion,
> "That
> would be me" is not correct.
If you want a private discussion, you should take it to private email.
You have no more standing here than anybody else to decide who is allowed
to comment on mailing list activity. And the assertion that Eliot is
"answering" for Jim is laughable on its face. Please stop this bullying.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
