[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
chiusano_joseph@bah.com (Chiusano Joseph) writes:
><Quote1>
>I think you would be well-served to read the materials referenced by
>threads before promoting yet another specification of only tangential
>value.
></Quote1>
>
>I think you would be well-served to read specifications before judging
>them as being of only "tangential value".
Relative to the content of the thread discussion, I'd say "tangential"
was being too generous. Maybe I should have added "to the thread" to
the end of that sentence for additional clarity?
><Quote2>
>Just don't do it in the guise of being helpful
></Quote2>
>
>I think you're really blowing this out of context - there was no
>"guise" here.
It felt like you were selling something vaguely connected to what I was
actually looking for. That may be my perception, but it does little to
encourage me to give you the benefit of the doubt.
><Quote3>
>It feels to me like working the room
></Quote3>
>
>I am not the one flailing about articles written 5 years ago when there
>are so many up-to-the-minute developments to keep abreast of.
The thread began with a citation of a recent paper:
http://cda.mrs.umn.edu/~mine0057/fs.pdf
James replied with a comment about his 1999 work:
http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200307/msg00426.html
You might read the thread before making additional meta-comments about
its content, never mind reading the references.
><Quote4>
>Starting new threads is probably a good idea in general here anyway.
></Quote4>
>
>I will not waste any listserv member's time by contributing any more to
>this thread. Feel free to reply away all you like. :)
I'm happy to stop here.
|
