Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> John Siracusa wrote:
>> Larry's just thinking out loud, right?
>
> Yes, and so is everyone else. Most posts here, including Larry's,
> are stream-of-conciousness. Heck, in one of the last ones I swear
> there were, what, 6 or 7 possible ways to say the same "binary op"
> things. 90% of everything proposed is shot down, though sometimes
> it generates a lot of noise before dying. Even many of the players
> here move in-and-out of conversation, from lurker to poster to
> lurker, depending on topic & free time.
And some of us have to summarize the bloody thing. Which is *so* not
fun. I'm always tempted to write "The Operator Thread goes on and on,
into scary territory 90% of which will turn out to be comepletely
irrelevant, but your summarizer hasn't got a clue which 90% that will
be. You're on your own..."
--
Piers
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in
possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite."
-- Jane Austen?
