Michael Everson wrote:
> At 21:44 -0400 2004-07-30, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >I guess it's about time to request your commentary on the Unicode
> >"definition" of abugida -- your explanation of why it wasn't a
> >distortion of the original intent.
> Excuse me, Peter, but I am not interested in any kind of
> I'm-right-you're-wrong pissing contest. I am not interested in the
> word "distort" or in bandying it back and forth with you. I will
> discuss the text of the definitions if, and only if, you will agree
> to assist, productively and courteously, in an effort to rewrite the
> definitions so that they are both useful and accurate. That has been
> my position all along.

It hasn't, but that's beside the point.

I posted the definitions I published many years ago. What's wrong with

Since you (plural) chose to alter, or ignore, them, it's up to you to
justify your changes.
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...