Michael Everson wrote:
> At 08:47 -0400 2004-07-13, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > This was unnecessarily rude.
> >
> >So you choose to continue hurling insults
> I didn't hurl an insult, Peter. I mentioned that you had been
> unnecessarily rude.
> >instead of either discussing the topic
> I'll get to it. Correcting the text is obviously not a high priority

obviously not; it's not my text and not my business to "correct" it. If
something goes out over my name, I try to make sure it's correct in the
first place.

> for you or you would have tried more helpful and cooperative about it
> these past few days. I don't know why you preferred bad-mouthing the
> Unicode editorial committee and trying to score points on me. It
> hasn't been very pleasant.
> My broadband is down today and I'm not spending a lot of time on
> line. I'm logging off now to do further work on a catalogue of one of
> Ireland's most important Irish-language publishing houses.
> >or admitting you were wrong.
> That really, really takes the cake, sir.

If this

> > 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.

doesn't imply that you think Unicode didn't distort and disrespect my
definitions, what _does_ it imply? With the definitions side by side,
everyone can see the distortions (and why you didn't care to post them
yourself). Ergo, you were wrong.
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...