Seshat wrote:

>
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >
> > > {*** Phrases removed by moderator ***}
> >
> > On what grounds?
>
> It was a pointless attack to *people* (the Unicode Consortium, if I
> recall properly, or was it engineers as an anthropoligica category?),
> as opposed to motivated criticism to *arguments* or *opinions* that
> you dislike.

One of them was about the author(s) of the Unicode glossary, the other
was about computer engineers.

> And I felt, and feel, that this kind of ad hominem attacks did not,
> and do not, comply with Qalam's rules, especially point(1):
>
> "Whether thou art an expert in any of these topics, or just hast
> a few questions to ask about writing system, join Qalam!
> I only ask thee to follow these few rules:

Sorry, I don't read stuff written in mock-Elizabethan.

> 1. Netiquette. Nothing complicated: use thy usual politeness, and
> be tolerant with members who know less than thee, or who indulge in
> heretic opinions. However, racism, sexism, obscenity and profanity
> are absolutely not welcome. Please drop me a line in case that such
> things appear in Qalam.
> 2. Topic. Qalam is a forum for discussing "the writing systems of
> the world". If thou realisest that the message thou art posting is
> off-topic, please prefix the mail subject with an [OT] indicator, so
> that other members will realize at-a-glance that thou art talking
> about something else. If thou thinkst that an off-topic discussion is
> becoming too long, consider asking the other people engaged in it to
> follow thee to another forum, or to continue the discussion
> privately.
> 3. Site rules. We are the guests of Yahoo!Groups, former eGroups
> (groups.yahoo.com), so please make sure that thy behaviour also
> complies with the eGroups rules (see Member Guidelines)."
>
> On the other hand, the rest of your message was perfectly OK by me
> (whether or not I personally agree with it), so I chose to only wipe
> away the offending part.
>
> But perhaps I would have done a better job rejected the whole
> message, indicating to you what part I condidered unacceptable. That
> what I will do in the future, if you prefer.

I'll continue to have a low opinion of the two classes named above,
unless evidence appears that they have carried out their tasks in a more
thoughtful manner than has so far transpired.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...