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@...