Dan, Wait a minute...
*MY* personal insult??? Weren't you the one who dealt my argument the death blow of being mere "paranoia"? After having personally resurrected it from irrelevantdom? Does it get more personal than that? I am paranoid therefore my arguments need not be considered? And I was just about to issue a postscript to remind people that I wasn't attacking you, only your argument that people who oppose dot.syntax are paranoid... Forget Jeesh. Holy cow! It was not a personal attack. I posited that I thought dot.syntax was an unwise addition to the language. You responded by saying that my argument constituted paranoia. Now, that's personal. You didn't say that my argument was wrong... no, you said I was paranoid. That's personal. Did I say you were a jerk? No, but you said I was paranoid. Can no-one disagree with your positions without resulting rancor? Judy On Sat, 25 Feb 2006, Dan Shafer wrote: > My Gosh, Judy, you do get emotional about the strangest stuff. Lighten > up. This is a theoretical discussion about language syntax, not a > public policy decision that could result in the deaths of millions. > > Yeesh. > _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
