Re: [elfscript] Istan pole!
- Carl F. Hostetter scripsit:
> As for the rest of Helge's post, I'll trust in the intelligence of theWe certainly do know the drill by now: each one's foot is aimed
> reader [...]. You know the drill by now.
directly at the other's knee, and though the vocabulary is adult,
the emotional tone is that of an 8-year-old. I would ask the two of
you to desist, but I've been down that road so many times there is
no further point in it.
Helge and Carl, we you implore
To go away and sin no more;
Or if that effort be too great,
To go away, at any rate.
(The sigmonster that chooses my .sig, though random, did rather well
"You know, you haven't stopped talking John Cowan
since I came here. You must have been http://www.reutershealth.com
vaccinated with a phonograph needle." jcowan@...
--Rufus T. Firefly http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
- Very clever and all, John, but once again, I will not accept being
lumped in with Helge in this matter.
It was Helge who began the personal attacks.
It is Helge who has refused a clear invitation to continue (the
scholarly portion of) this discussion in another forum.
It is Helge who refuses to stick to any sort of scholarly argument, but
instead continues his campaign of mockery, distortions and attacks.
It is entirely up to Helge to end this, either by dropping it or by
responding honestly and thoughtfully to the scholarly issue(s) under
discussion, in a manner devoid of mockery, distortions and attacks.
- Carl F. Hostetter scripsit:
> It is entirely up to Helge to end this, either by dropping it or by"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." Either one of you can
> responding honestly and thoughtfully to the scholarly issue(s) under
> discussion, in a manner devoid of mockery, distortions and attacks.
drop this, and both of you should. If you won't, you won't, but it is
false to claim that "it is entirely up to Helge", as if your postings
(but not his) were *truly* a matter of conditioned reflex rather than
a choice for which you stand responsible.
"No, John. I want formats that are actually John Cowan
useful, rather than over-featured megaliths that http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
address all questions by piling on ridiculous http://www.reutershealth.com
internal links in forms which are hideously jcowan@...
over-complex." --Simon St. Laurent on xml-dev
- This is not "an eye for an eye", John; that you think it is shows how
little attention you've paid to the discussion. It is fallacious claim
versus correction, which is a very, very different thing.
I have repeatedly "dropped" this; every time I correct Helge's
distortions and fallacies, the matter is dropped, so far as I am
concerned. It is dropped right now, in fact.
But then Helge comes along an picks it up again, with a new and
increasingly desperate round of distortions and fallacies, which as I
have said before I will not allow to go uncorrected when they concern
me or my colleagues. Period.
So once again: the matter _is_ dropped, right now; unless Helge picks
it up again.