|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
XML
|
Re: Comment on post 321
Dave, I'm not here to prove anything, I just wanted an answer to my question. Before I say anything else, let me say thank you for answering my question, because I felt it was an important one. You've asked people before to read what you've written, and not twist what you say. Well, I did that, and your 'three bits of funk' statement definitely implied that you considered all namespaced elements 'funky'. You aknowledged that yourself, so I don't see why you're blaming me for drawing the obvious conclusion. I explained how I came to this conclusion and asked (with respect) whether I had got anything wrong. I did all this several times, in several places. Each time you dropped out of the conversation without answering. I hope you can see why this caused me to be more persistent in wanting an answer, and not less, because I felt that what you were implying was important, and that your reluctance (refusal? unwillingness?) to answer my question was important as well. I did not flame you, nor did I accuse you of anything. In fact, I took other people to task for flaming at you on several occasions. I only sought to understand, and explained what my current understanding was, my thoughts and feelings, and how I got there. Now you're twisting *my* words, saying I asked you to check with a lawywer, threatening to sue you. Accusing me of having a hidden agenda and trying to make you seem an immoral or bad person. Not fair, Dave, not fair at all. Feel free to reread all the email I've ever written you, the postings I've made to mailing lists and comments I've made on weblogs (yours and elsewhere). I don't think you'll find I deserve to be attacked this way by you, simply because I asked a question you didn't want to answer.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Last update: Tuesday, July 1, 2003 at 1:21:04 AM Pacific. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||