From: Peter Kirk (email@example.com)
Date: Wed May 12 2004 - 00:13:25 CDT
On 11/05/2004 06:44, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
> Peter Kirk wrote:
>> But have the others agreed with his judgments because they are
>> convinced of their correctness? Or is it more that the others have
>> trusted the judgments of the one they consider to be an expert, and
>> have either not dared to stand up to him or have simply been
>> unqulified to do so? It amazes me that all of the existing scripts
>> have apparently been encoded without any properly documented
>> justification apart from one expert's unchallenged judgments.
> Hey, come on, is this really necessary? "Gee, I disagree with Michael
> on this point, and what's more he seems arrogant to me. I bet that
> means that he's been running roughshod over the whole Unicode
> community for years and nobody's dared to stand up to him." The logic
> falls apart there somewhere in the middle. If you really think that
> some of the already-encoded scripts are poorly attested, speak up on
> specifics, not just "Michael must be running everything (because
> nobody before me would ever have stood up to him)." Not that there's
> much that can be done about what's already encoded, but vague
> accusations really do *not* help the kind of discussion we need to
> promote around here.
> Try to keep it civil, OK?
It was not me who said that Michael's judgments were all accepted, but
John Cowan. He has now stated that this is incorrect. I apologise for
accepting uncritically the false information and for the inferences I
made from it.
I have not called Michael arrogant, at least not publicly.
-- Peter Kirk firstname.lastname@example.org (personal) email@example.com (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 12 2004 - 00:15:13 CDT