Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>
> > You did plenty of lecturing when I actually took your advice to look up
> > your citation, and your conclusions proved to be incomplete at best and
> > inaccurate at worst. I choose to think incomplete because I am an
> > optimist :)
>
> My answer was correct. The CMS rule, which is generally taken as the US
> standard, is as I said.

Even if we accept that as true, your answer was incomplete in that CMS
discusses how contentious this issue is, and that others disagree on
their interpretation and they respect that. I think it was paragraphs
6.21-6.23, I don't have it in front of me right now.

You are right in one regard - I asked a question, you answered it, maybe
even to the best of your ability, and all was fine. You took issue that
I actually looked at your citation, and didn't come to the same
conclusion as you did. It doesn't bother me in the least that we
disagree, but it does bother me that you don't feel I should be allowed
to interpret the citation myself and should rely on you. Especially when
the citation itself discusses the nature of disagreements in this matter
among specialists.

It is OK to disagree, really!

>
> > case? That would be flattering but unlikely I think.
>
> At least we now know that you are not now and have never been a teacher.

You don't know that and you would be wrong. What I am not is *your*
teacher at your beck and call to answer off topic vocabulary questions.
And were I your teacher, I would certainly expect you, as an adult, to
show some initiative in helping yourself learn. So far you haven't done
that in this case as far as I can tell.

But I do confess to a nagging feeling deep down that maybe you have
tried my suggestions on search engines, and are just looking to argue
just to argue.

Realistically I hope that is not true, but the alternative is that you
didn't try it yet, and that would speak volumes if true.

I guess I would rather not know which of the two cases is true :)

>
>
> Netscape 3.04 does not have a killfile. Why don't you know that?

I doubt if most email clients have a literal killfile, especially the
ones with a gui interface. They do have other methods of achieving the
same effect though. As before, check your manuals or help files,
wherever they may be. I deleted my Netscape 3.04 software and manuals
around 1997 I think.

> Or are
> you going to claim you have no way of knowing that I use Netscape 3.04
> -- when people routinely discover such information from message headers?

It matters not to me what client you use. I am certain that it has the
capability to filter messages from me based on the headers. The
technique may vary depending on the client, which is why I told you to
look for the details yourself in the first place.

I am a little intrigued by computers, of which yours may be an example,
that have such old versions of software - kind of retro and I wonder if
there should be a museum for examples of their ilk. I confess to knowing
at least one other person who has even older software then you seem to
have on his PC. And no, that person is not on this list :)

>
>
> I could take your presence on this List a lot more seriously if you gave
> some evidence of interest in or knowledge of writing systems.

Like I care about whether you take me seriously or not. You don't take
me seriously, I think you are an amusing troll. Let's leave it at that
because that is not the purpose of this list, and move on, OK?

Best,

Barry