Michael Everson wrote:

>
> At 19:47 -0400 2004-07-16, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> >Michael: you made it your business to be nothing but insulting for
> >several days at the beginning of this week.
>
> I did not try to insult you. I did try to point out to you that
> making accusations about Unicode "distorting" "your" definitions was
> inappropriate.

Truth is rarely inappropriate. At a funeral, perhaps, it isn't
appropriate.

> >When I then posted the material that you claimed to be unable to
> >locate yourself,
>
> Incorrect. I challenged you to back up your accusation with facts,
> and you refused to do so. Others did so, and since you did not, I
> informed the forum that I would deal with the "accusations" when I
> had leisure to do so.
>
> >which demonstrated that my assertions were completely correct, you
> >fell totally silent.
>
> I will get to it when I can. I am currently involved doing something else.
>
> >You now reemerge to do nothing but complain once again.
>
> Good gods, man, you asked Suzanne whether she had started out as an
> English major. If that isn't condescending and insulting, well, I
> can't imagine what it was.

I have two useful and innocuous-seeming insults: "engineer" and "English
major." Both are based in considerable experience of their respective
attitudes toward questions of theory!

> >I, however, answer every one of Suzanne's questions, and she answers
> >very few of mine;
>
> Try asking them civilly.
>
> >and she continues to manifest that she does not understand the answers,
>
> That may well be the case. Her attempts to "equate" Gurmukhi with
> Ethiopic are indeed puzzling.
>
> >and continues to inject questions that have no evident connection
> >with the material to which she appends them.
> >
> >This is, to say the least, frustrating. I am expressing frustration.
>
> Try not to do so ad feminam.

Then ad whom? Surely she can complain for herself!
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...