RE: Mixed up priorities

From: Reynolds, Gregg (
Date: Sat Oct 23 1999 - 16:21:12 EDT

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Everson []
> Sent: Saturday, October 23, 1999 2:03 PM
> Tetchy, aren't we? I meant exactly what I said, that the
> common dictionary
> meaning of these terms was intended, and I directed you
> thither in case you
> thought special technical terminology or definitions were required or
> should be devised, which they aren't and needn't.

You disappoint me Michael - you've just played one of the oldest and most
transparent (and sophmoric) rhetorical tricks in the book. I guess if you
want to play it that way it's okay by me. I was assuming that you had full
control over text and subtext, but maybe not. I also assumed that you had
read my note before responding, but maybe not. In any case, let's drop it,
I'm sure nobody is interested. I stand forwarned: I will not expect common
courtesy from you in future.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:54 EDT