🚀 go-pugleaf

> I don't object to you arguing for the standard to be based on Quintus.
> You might be considered to be failing your employers if you didn't.
> But don't presume that Quintus is in a uniquely priviledged position.

Chris, I honestly don't understand how you could make this statement if
you'd really been reading the comments Richard has been making.  It has
been quite clear to me that
	1) At NO time did Richard propose Quintus as a standard model.
	2) Several times he specifically said tht Quintus did some
	   particular thing WRONG, and should have done it in a more 
	   "standard" manner.
	3) Richard has been trying very hard to champion the cause of
	   existing users, existing code, and existing practices.
	   He is trying to make sure that current users of Prolog can
	   benefit from the standardization efforts, rather than having
	   to throw away their programs and recode them in BSI "Prolog".
	4) Along the way he has pointed out some glaring holes, errors,
	   and inconsistencies in the BSI proposals.  Granted, the BSI
	   document is not complete, but Richard is performing (or at
	   least trying to perform) a valuable service by critiquing it.

It concerns me greatly when I see a knowledgeable expert like Richard
making pointed comments about problems in the standard, supported by
valid examples and cogent arguments, and you (apparently the only member
of the standards committee following the discussion) answer with veiled 
innuendo and non sequiturs.  Nearly every time you have responded to
Richard's messages it has been on the level of "Richard, I can't STAND
your upper-class British accent!" or other such condescending drivel;
you have almost never replied to the technical issues Richard raised.
When you did, it appeared to me that you completely ignored or misunderstood
the point of Richard's posting.  I am frankly amazed (but very glad)
that he hasn't given up on you and let you go invent whatever oddball
language you cared to devise.

I think Richard would probably be the first to admit that he doesn't always
have the most diplomatic writing style.  As far as I can see, however, the
content of his sometimes-acerbic comments is right on the mark, and deserves
a thoughtful reply to the technical points.  I would hope you could look past
his writing style and consider the issues he raises.  The responsibilities of
your position on a standard-creating committee demand it.

Gary Fritz