Hi again, On 4 April 2011 12:50, Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net>wrote:
1. If you can, find a way to write interlinear comments that retain the attributions.
There weren't many in the original mail of yours that I responded to.
2. I described an exchange of notes on another ALAC list.
That wasn't made clear, nor was the rationale behind moving from a global list to regional one on a global issue. 3. At no time, other than to refer to Patrick as the initial drafter of a
document developed on that other ALAC list, did I suggest that the view I characterized as harmful to applicants came from that particular contributor to that draft. As small as the number of contributors are to that list, and it is quite small, that number is in excess of two (2).
Again, unclear. If you are going to say that *people* are harmful (as opposed to their ideas or opinions), you ought to indicate who. Otherwise, what's the point of the name-calling?
If you could refrain from confusing issues with your highly developed sense of email politess, that would at least not remove information from the mailing list as a means of communications.
That's probably the first time in many decades of using email -- dating back to my telly!evan UUCP days -- that I've ever been accused of excess politeness. I can't tell whether to be flattered or insulted. In any case, I think most would agree that email politeness is a resource suffering from extreme scarcity.
Anyone reading your contribution to this subject would conclude that Patrick and I disagree on something fundamental, which I think will surprise Patrick as much as it surprises me.
Excellent. That means having the two of you collaborating on a decent consensus position will be easier than I envisioned. -- Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56