Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > {*** Phrases removed by moderator ***}
>
> On what grounds?

It was a pointless attack to *people* (the Unicode Consortium, if I
recall properly, or was it engineers as an anthropoligica category?),
as opposed to motivated criticism to *arguments* or *opinions* that
you dislike.

And I felt, and feel, that this kind of ad hominem attacks did not,
and do not, comply with Qalam's rules, especially point(1):

"Whether thou art an expert in any of these topics, or just hast
a few questions to ask about writing system, join Qalam!
I only ask thee to follow these few rules:
1. Netiquette. Nothing complicated: use thy usual politeness, and
be tolerant with members who know less than thee, or who indulge in
heretic opinions. However, racism, sexism, obscenity and profanity
are absolutely not welcome. Please drop me a line in case that such
things appear in Qalam.
2. Topic. Qalam is a forum for discussing "the writing systems of
the world". If thou realisest that the message thou art posting is
off-topic, please prefix the mail subject with an [OT] indicator, so
that other members will realize at-a-glance that thou art talking
about something else. If thou thinkst that an off-topic discussion is
becoming too long, consider asking the other people engaged in it to
follow thee to another forum, or to continue the discussion
privately.
3. Site rules. We are the guests of Yahoo!Groups, former eGroups
(groups.yahoo.com), so please make sure that thy behaviour also
complies with the eGroups rules (see Member Guidelines)."

On the other hand, the rest of your message was perfectly OK by me
(whether or not I personally agree with it), so I chose to only wipe
away the offending part.

But perhaps I would have done a better job rejected the whole
message, indicating to you what part I condidered unacceptable. That
what I will do in the future, if you prefer.

--
Seshat