From: Mark E. Shoulson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri May 07 2004 - 17:57:09 CDT
Oh, this is ridiculous. "They're the same script." It's shown they're
not. "Scholars don't want it." It's shown they do. "Then ask more
scholars." That way lieth madness; you can always say the *next* people
we talk to will *really* put us in our place... There's always some
further problem you can find as each successive one is disproven. But
that's true with anything.
It's reasonable to assume that Paul Cowie and Deborah Anderson speak not
only for themselves, as they do not work in a vacuum and refer to
corresponding with colleagues.
We might as well let things keep going and see what, if any, responses
Deborah Anderson got from her call for reaction. The wheels of Unicode
turn plenty slow, from what I've seen, so there should be time to gauge
response before it comes to vote (or maybe I'm wrong; I don't pay
attention to schedules).
E. Keown wrote:
> Elaine Keown
>>See posts by Deborah Anderson and Paul James Cowie.
>>Is that enough? Or
>>are they not expert enough or something?
>Let's say there are 400 epigraphers in the world.
>How many votes does one need to get a genuine sense of
>I don't know, but I don't think 3 is enough......
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 07 2004 - 18:45:26 CDT