Michael Everson wrote:

>
> At 16:11 -0400 2004-07-11, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> >"Unicode Standard," whoever that is, screwed with the definitions
> >they found in my book (or, possibly, prior articles). Why should I
> >try to get them to unscrew with what was plainly before their eyes?
>
> Because you are the one extolling your unassailable wisdom to us and
> suggesting that the work of the Unicode editorial committee is
> inadequate?
>
> Because you are the one that assumes that it was the precise
> definitions in your book which were the basis

There was no other possible source for them, since I introduced them
into the literature and they had not yet been taken up by any other
author at the date, which you refused to provide, when those definitions
were rewritten. I don't, actually, know of anyone but Steven Roger
Fischer who has used them as if they were familiar knowledge, and they
appear in the ToC of Hank Rogers's forthcoming Blackwell textbook which,
thankfully, is replacing Coulmas's. No more than the ToC, however, is
yet available.

> Because you have yet to show us, by quoting the Unicode definitions
> alongside your own to show us exactly how YOUR definitions have been
> distorted. And no, sir, I'm not going to do that work for you. You're
> the one doing the complaining that YOUR definitions aren't being
> respected.
>
> You seem to be going out of your way to be impolite and curmudgeonly
> to pretty much everyone on this list. It's offensive. I have been
> trying to invite you to a more interesting sort of discourse, and now
> you're being snippy with me. I wish you wouldn't be.

When did qalam, a list for the discussion of writing systems, turn into
a list for the discussion of Unicode? I thought it had its own list.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...