--- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, Michael Everson <everson@...> wrote:

> Peter,
>
> I respect your work. I consider D&B to be one of the bibles I use

in

> my work; it has been of immense use to me. I believe -- absent
> civilizational collapse -- that the work I have done to encode
> scripts in Unicode will be used for centuries, and much of that

work

> depends on what D&B has taught me. Your work has found practical
> applications, which is a Good Thing.
>
> The tone of discussion on this list has ranged from adversarial to,
> well, a bit snotty, of late. For my part I count this as just part

of

> the richness of discourse of smart human beings. I disagree with

you

> on some points, but I consider you a colleague and ally; I hope you
> consider me the same. There *are* differences in the things we do:

we

> describe writing systems, we theorize about the nature and
> classification of writing systems, and we try to take the knowledge
> we derive from studying writing systems and put it into practical
> implementation so that people who want to *use* those writing

systems

> on computers can do so.
>
> I think that most of the clashes we are having hang upon difference
> in terminology.
>
> Even if occasionally acrimonious, these discussions are useful for

us

> all. If we disagree, let us do so, but let us try to know why. In

any

> event, let us endeavour to avoid falling out.
>
> I trust that you will take this declaration on my part at face

value.

> I don't like sniping for its own sake.

Bravo, Mike! Bravo!

I'm very proud of what you've said here. Very nicely put. Now the two
of you can be superior to everybody else together!

Best Wishes,
Mark