🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <23902@megaron.cs.arizona.edu>, gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes:
> 
> Here you make a gratuitous ad homenim attack based on an unsupported
> assumption.  My article was not intended to support the position that

I apologize for the personal nature of the attack on Herman and David.
In view of the high quality of discussion on this newsgroup, it was
completely uncalled for.

> It was meant only to point out the unfairness of _your_ remark.  The
> fact that you think the idea is ridiculous implies that you think the
> issue is decided, contrary to your comment:

True. The word ridiculous should be changed to "highly improbable"
to reduce the offensive tone of my earlier post.

> I have an opinion on the question, but I do not intend to discuss it
> in this setting of ad homenim attacks and insulting condescension.

I would be interested in the opinion, as I still believe that a
universal language isn't a good idea. 

--
Mike Bolotski           VLSI Laboratory, Department of Electrical Engineering
mikeb@salmon.ee.ubc.ca  University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada 


Mike Bolotski           VLSI Laboratory, Department of Electrical Engineering
mikeb@salmon.ee.ubc.ca  University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada