Re: Phoenician

From: Peter Kirk (
Date: Wed May 12 2004 - 00:13:25 CDT

  • Next message: Jony Rosenne: "RE: OT [was TR35]"

    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?
    > ~mark
    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 (personal) (work)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 12 2004 - 00:15:13 CDT