In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: M. Warner Losh scripsit:
:
: > In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: > Rob Seaman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: > : Actually, this list is not a "discussion" per se. If we simplify the
: > : positions - just for the sake of argument here - to "leap second yes"
: > : and "leap second no", the reality is that the folks pushing the "leap
: > : second no" position have never engaged with this list. There are
: > : several doughty people here who happen to have that opinion, but they
: > : abide with us mortals outside the time lords' hushed inner sanctum.
: >
: > What an amaizingly unhelpful and offsensive statement. I have spent
: > much time explaining why leap seconds cause real problems in real
: > applications, only to be insulted like this.
:
: I believe you have misread Rob's remark, though I concede that it was
: easy to misread. I believe Rob meant that the people who are pushing
: "leap seconds no" in *official* channels are not to be found on this list.
: That being so, the "leap seconds yes" folks are unable to challenge them
: or persuade them otherwise.
:
: You and I, on the other hand, fall into the "doughty people here" group.
Maybe I did misread them. I've been sick the past three days, so
maybe we can chalk it up to that and I'll offer my oppologies for
having such a thin skin.
Wanrer
